homosexual marriage

[Luddly Neddite]

Everyone will eventually be forced to participate in one way or another in gay marriage and gay family life. At least until resentment contributes to the end of the whole thing.

Yo, bimbo,

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well it looks like the ladies are played out, once more.

So... once again, when the inevitable newbie comes along and asks the question: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments?"

Be sure to link them directly back to this FORMAL EVISCERATION of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the deceitful practices fraudulently employed by evil, (OKA: The Ideological Left) as a means to influence the ignorant.

It's been real kids... rest up and get ready for the next round.

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

You have been exposed as a fraud and your credibility has taken a beating when you tried to pretend that you were a "higher authority" than dictionaries.

In essence you have made yourself into a laughing stock around here. Have a nice day.

The guy can't even find his keys and we're supposed to listen to him about what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms?

I think not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well it looks like the ladies are played out, once more.

So... once again, when the inevitable newbie comes along and asks the question: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments?"

Be sure to link them directly back to this FORMAL EVISCERATION of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the deceitful practices fraudulently employed by evil, (OKA: The Ideological Left) as a means to influence the ignorant.

It's been real kids... rest up and get ready for the next round.

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

You have been exposed as a fraud and your credibility has taken a beating when you tried to pretend that you were a "higher authority" than dictionaries.

In essence you have made yourself into a laughing stock around here. Have a nice day.

The guy can't even find his keys and we're supposed to listen to him about what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms?

I think not.

I know that posting style from somewhere. It will come to me eventually.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well it looks like the ladies are played out, once more.

So... once again, when the inevitable newbie comes along and asks the question: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments?"

Be sure to link them directly back to this FORMAL EVISCERATION of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the deceitful practices fraudulently employed by evil, (OKA: The Ideological Left) as a means to influence the ignorant.

It's been real kids... rest up and get ready for the next round.

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

You have been exposed as a fraud and your credibility has taken a beating when you tried to pretend that you were a "higher authority" than dictionaries.

In essence you have made yourself into a laughing stock around here. Have a nice day.

The guy can't even find his keys and we're supposed to listen to him about what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms?

I think not.

I know that posting style from somewhere. It will come to me eventually.

We've got a lot RW Peeping Tom's on this board ...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... I think not.

Agreed.

 

[LittleNipper]

Everyone will eventually be forced to participate in one way or another in gay marriage and gay family life.

Forced to participate? That statement is absurd, but to be expected coming from you.

At least until resentment contributes to the end of the whole thing.

Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. You can hate it as much as you want, but gay rights are here to stay. If for some reason you can't live with that, then tough shit.

Until the end when evil is thrown into the pit.

Which is evil...those who are law-abiding and tax-paying and are asking for equal rights? Or those trying to keep law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from their equal rights?

Evil is when one labels one's own sins as righteousness, and seeks to distort that which is righteous into something to distain.

 

[Silhouette]

[

Yo, bimbo,

Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.

"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I know that posting style from somewhere. It will come to me eventually.

Well there's a first time for everything and won't it be a great day for all of us to see a Leftist come to enjoy a moment of clarity. Best of luck scout... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[

Yo, bimbo,

Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.

"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.

Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.

 

[Czernobog]

No it's not. Murder is illegal because it deprives another of their right to life. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is about protecting me from you. No moral justification needed.

The Life, is the moral foundation...

There is nothing moral about it. it is simple self-preservation. Guess what? Man doesn't believe that life is morally sacred. In fact, man is violent, vicious, vindictive, and venomous. If you asked anyone, given the guarantee of no consequences, every single person can think of one, or two people that they would be absolutely certain the world would be better off without, if they were allowed to relieve those people of the nasty addiction to breathing. However, man is also emminently selfish. Man has an extremely well-formed sense of survival. I happen to enjoy my addiction to breathing, and do not want you to be able to take that from me. Therefore, I agree to the social stricture that declares that no one is allowed to kill anyone, and that anyone who breaks that rule will suffer severe consequences. Thus Law is born - to protect me from you. the same is true of all basic laws - theft, assault, even rape. The purpose of Law is to protect me from you.

Admittedly, many created religious, moralistic justifications for these basic principles. That is because in addition to being violent, vicious, vindictive, and venomous, man is also cunning, and superstitious. The more cunning figured out that the perfect way to control the more superstitious was to inject divinity into the rules. After all, I am no better than you, so when I say, "Do not rape your sister," you have no reason to listen to me. However, when I say "God commands that you not rape your sister!" Welll..., now if God commanded it, it must be a moral, and proper commandment, and so must be obeyed!

That doesn't make Law a matter of morality - it just makes man both cunning, and stupid. Then somewhere along the line, you moralists decided that it was your "responsibility" to protect me from myself. This was when you started creating all of these "morality laws" - prohibiting drinking, prostitution, drugs, telling people who can be with whom - all in the name of protecting us from our "baser instincts". Well, guess what? Not only is it not your responsibility to protect me from myself; it is not your right to do so! Every time you try, all you succeed in doing is depriving me of my individual liberty. So, do me a favor? Mind your own ******* business, and quit trying to protect me from myself!

 

[dcraelin]

You mean like when Attorney Generals of States refuse to fight for their own states constitution as Jerry Brown did in California. Should he have been fired?

That's an interesting point. Is it part of the job of an attorney general to fight for all laws even one they know is going to get shot down?

I certainly think it is their duty to defend the laws of their state........Jerry Brown, and I believe a number of others that didnt do that should have been fired......or had the integrity to quit. They should also have been disbarred(sp?).

The courts didn't agree with you. The courts ruled that the state didn't have to defend it.
Calif. Court: State Does Not Need to Defend Prop. 8

It is unclear from your link whether part of their reasoning was that the state did have provisions for ballot issue initiators, I believe, to defend in the case the AG did not......But BOTH should have in my opinion......If the courts disagreed they are wrong. But the error may be more of a federal court than state court error.

 

[dcraelin]

Because it is their damn duty as a public servant...lawyers defend losing cases all the time........All AGs that pulled that stunt........including the US AG should have been fired and disbarred.

Be that as it may, these AGs decided that these cases couldn't not be won and used their prosecutorial discretion to not defend them anymore. The law was still in effect but the AG decided defending it was foolish.

NO what they decided is they didnt agree with the law.........regardless, either way they shouldv'e had the integrity to step down.

So, you wanted them spending tax money defending the undefendable?

It wasn't "undefendable". Until an issue such as this makes it all the way to the supreme court it is unresolved...........
What it was, was him putting his personal opinion ahead of his duty.............
What the magistrate in the OP did was no different.

So, what happens when all 10 district courts find the marriage ban unconstitutional, and same-sex marriage is allowed in all 50 states without the Supreme Court having to say a single word on the issue? Will you still insist that it is "unresolved"?

I believe I spoke to this earlier.

 

[bodecea]

[

Yo, bimbo,

Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.

"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.

Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.

Supposedly anti-gay adults spend more time talking about gay sex and children than any gay person I know.

 

[Czernobog]

Be that as it may, these AGs decided that these cases couldn't not be won and used their prosecutorial discretion to not defend them anymore. The law was still in effect but the AG decided defending it was foolish.

NO what they decided is they didnt agree with the law.........regardless, either way they shouldv'e had the integrity to step down.

So, you wanted them spending tax money defending the undefendable?

It wasn't "undefendable". Until an issue such as this makes it all the way to the supreme court it is unresolved...........
What it was, was him putting his personal opinion ahead of his duty.............
What the magistrate in the OP did was no different.

So, what happens when all 10 district courts find the marriage ban unconstitutional, and same-sex marriage is allowed in all 50 states without the Supreme Court having to say a single word on the issue? Will you still insist that it is "unresolved"?

I believe I spoke to this earlier.

I must have missed it. Care to revisit?

 

[Syriusly]

[
Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man... for the purpose of procreation,

Clearly that is not true here in the United States.

As all of these court cases have demonstrated, the States have not been able to demonstrate any linkage between marriage and procreation.

A couple that gets married is not required to prove either the ability or an intent to procreate.

And States allow marriage between couples that clearly cannot procreate- for example a couple in their 80's.

And States even require some couples to prove that they CANNOT procreate before they will allow them to marry.

Marriage is the joining of two people- as the courts have noted:

In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

That closely reflects how I view my marriage. We didn't get married in order to have children, and we didn't get married in order for our child to be within a marriage- we got married because we loved one another, and wanted to establish legal bond that reflected our personal bond- one of bilateral loyalty, enduring and intimate.


My wife is my partner- and my lover. We were a family before we had our child. We are together for better or worse, for good times and bad- we are in this journey through life together.


We have gay friends who have the same kind of relationship as we do. As long as there are legal ramifications for a couple to be married, then I believe that my gay friends who have the same married relationship as my wife and I have, should have the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as my wife and I have.

 

[Syriusly]

[

Yo, bimbo,

Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.

"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.

Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.

What bigoted BS

What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy

Lawrence v Texas the court said:

The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]

Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter

 

[Syriusly]

[

Yo, bimbo,

Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.

Homosexuals were adopting children before they were able to marry
Homosexuals were giving birth to children before they were able to marry.
Homosexuals who marry may- or may not have children.
Children who are in orphanages, in foster care, and pending adoption were overwhelmingly abandoned there by their father and mother.
Homosexuals marrying doesn't change that- but homosexuals adopting will lead to a few more children having parents to care for them, after their biological mother and father have abandoned them.

 

[Silhouette]

Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.

It is exceedingly difficult to disagree with you given the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk and his sodomizing his adopted minor ward and many other "young waifs with substance abuse problems"...0% of any LGBT person denouncing that. And the same with lewd acts performed on purpose in gay pride parades where children invited to watch and attend.

Anyone supporting/not denouncing either of those two revealing governing LGBT tenets belongs on a sex-offenders' registry.

 

[Syriusly]

Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.

It is exceedingly difficult to disagree with you given the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk and his sodomizing his adopted minor ward and many other "young waifs with substance abuse problems"...0% of any LGBT person denouncing that.

Considering those are all your lies- why should any LGBT denounce what there is absolutely no evidence of happening?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[

Yo, bimbo,

Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.

"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.

Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.

What bigoted BS

What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy

Lawrence v Texas the court said:

The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]

Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter

The court was wrong; their reasoning was vacuous, their ruling specious and as is always the case in such decisions, the ramifications of such are going to be catastrophic.

Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexuality. Meaning that the homosexual suffers from and in many cases nurtures and promotes a perversion of human sexuality.

The promotion of sexual abnormality represents a threat to the culture at large, wherein it undermines the cultures viability, perverting the standards which sustains the culture or societies viability. This injures those whose interests rests within the means of the society to remain viable.

There is no right to injure others... there is no 'right' where the exercise of such will injure another's means to exercise their own rights.

From this we can know that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a lie, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant, designed toward no other purpose than to undermine the viability of the United States itself. And of course will be stopped. Either by adults who understand the catastrophic potential in tolerating evil or by nature itself, which seems determined to destroy it, on any number of levels.