Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[Mikeoxenormous]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Because 2 men cannot provide a motherly instinct, or 2 women cannot tell a boy how to be a man. Faggots cant tell a boy how to be a man either, not when they are eating the shithole or sucking dick.

 

[evenflow1969]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

blah,blah,blah.dumbass

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

blah,blah,blah.dumbass

Run away little girl...

 

[Cosmos]

I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.

The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a ****** was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a *** go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

**** you all, you crazy *****, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just ******* tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

View attachment 270815

Funny how all this nonsense keeps welling up further and further each year and becomes more outrageous and offensive each year. But when this can of worms was opened during the gay marriage debate, the pervs all claimed that their privacy was being violated and what they did in the privacy of their bedrooms had no effect on anyone.

If they took it back in the closet and left the rest of us out of it, we wouldn't have a problem. They cannot force people to accept their vile and perverted behavior, bordering on pedophilia, as normal.

 

[Correll]

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who.

I guess such a bizarre and outrageously false statement as that should not be surprising coming from someone who believes in the madness of “transgenderism”, meaning that you deny the fundamental biological differences between men and women, much less the crucial, unique roles that each sex brings into making a marriage and a family.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a ****** was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a *** go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

**** you all, you crazy *****, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just ******* tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

View attachment 270815

Funny how all this nonsense keeps welling up further and further each year and becomes more outrageous and offensive each year. But when this can of worms was opened during the gay marriage debate, the pervs all claimed that their privacy was being violated and what they did in the privacy of their bedrooms had no effect on anyone.

If they took it back in the closet and left the rest of us out of it, we wouldn't have a problem. They cannot force people to accept their vile and perverted behavior, bordering on pedophilia, as normal.

What the **** are you blathering about? "In the privacy of the the bedroom? " That's right it has nothing to do with you except to the extent that you are obsessed with gay sex which is usually an indication that you have issues with your own sexuality.When was that last time that you saw a gay couple having sex in public? To you jerks its all about sex with no understanding that you are maligning people who are more alike than different from you and I. They just want to go about their lives and have the same rights as everyone else. Get a ******* grip on yourself, What effect has gay marriage had on you, really? Tell us more about how the gays have been "bothering you" except in the dark recesses of your strange mind. Gays will not go back in the closet and be invisible. They are part of the fabric of society and members of the community. Get used to it .

 

[evenflow1969]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

blah,blah,blah.dumbass

Run away little girl...

no one is going to run for your idiot ass not even a little girl. you are hillarious.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your **** buddy Bob.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a ****** was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a *** go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

**** you all, you crazy *****, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just ******* tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

View attachment 270815

Funny how all this nonsense keeps welling up further and further each year and becomes more outrageous and offensive each year. But when this can of worms was opened during the gay marriage debate, the pervs all claimed that their privacy was being violated and what they did in the privacy of their bedrooms had no effect on anyone.

If they took it back in the closet and left the rest of us out of it, we wouldn't have a problem. They cannot force people to accept their vile and perverted behavior, bordering on pedophilia, as normal.

What the **** are you blathering about? "In the privacy of the the bedroom? " That's right it has nothing to do with you except to the extent that you are obsessed with gay sex which is usually an indication that you have issues with your own sexuality.When was that last time that you saw a gay couple having sex in public? To you jerks its all about sex with no understanding that you are maligning people who are more alike than different from you and I. They just want to go about their lives and have the same rights as everyone else. Get a ******* grip on yourself, What effect has gay marriage had on you, really? Tell us more about how the gays have been "bothering you" except in the dark recesses of your strange mind. Gays will not go back in the closet and be invisible. They are part of the fabric of society and members of the community. Get used to it .

now the belligerent queer shows up, when no one will bow down to his will. Of course back in the day, no one gave a crap what the fags did, as long as it was in their bedroom not being FORCED upon children who have a hard enough time, learning math and science. So in comes the insane teachers, who indoctrinate these young minds of mush saying "oh it is okay for you to put your dick in another boys ass, go for it, we dont care. Again when someone doesnt tow the party line, then the faggots go on the attack and shut down the business, even when it is owned by a "woman". The Liberal War on Women has escalated to the next level. You fudge packers are disgusting.

Salon forced to close after refusing to wax transgender woman's male genitalia

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with it and anyone who is watch knows that except your **** buddy Bob.

and dont forget the liberals working with Muzzies.

 

[Correll]

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your **** buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

 

[evenflow1969]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.

 

[Correll]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.

You don't get to assault us for not supporting you in your agenda, and claim it is because we judged you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your **** buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Coward! Deal with your allegations that same sex parents are not adequately nurturing .Deal with your predictions that same sex marriage is bringing about a decline in society .You said those things. Own them .

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.

There was nothing in the bible that stated that putting a man's dick in another man's ass was okay with Jesus. Also there was some scripture that did point out how immoral actions caused 2 cities to just disappear. But you go ahead and keep using the Rules for Radicals, I know how you think, it is all about turning this great country into a 3rd world shithole.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your **** buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Coward! Deal with your allegations that same sex parents are not adequately nurturing .Deal with your predictions that same sex marriage is bringing about a decline in society .You said those things. Own them .

Mom and Dad Fill Different Roles - NYTimes.com

In 50 years, our society has gone from “father knows best” to “father knows nothing” to “who needs a father?” While some may view this as a modern advancement, I see it as a disastrous erosion of how family best operates.
There have always been single moms – women who sacrifice everything for the welfare of their children. In past times, the circumstances were identified as tragic, calling for the support of family and community. When did we make tragedy the accepted norm?
No woman can be mom and dad to her children. Children who grow up without a father are more likely to suffer from a gamut of ills, from poverty to suicide.

Same goes for men trying to be a mom, just doesnt ******* work. Are you for children growing up mentally ill and then commit suicide? Is that your agenda? Do post birth abortion on children because you hate them for trying to be normal?

 

[Correll]

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your **** buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Coward! Deal with your allegations that same sex parents are not adequately nurturing .Deal with your predictions that same sex marriage is bringing about a decline in society .You said those things. Own them .

I have and will be happy to again, (deal with them that is)


but not at the cost of allowing you to use those points, to muddy the waters on the central point(s) of this issue.


The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

 

[evenflow1969]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot. You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God. It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you. Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?

Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.

There was nothing in the bible that stated that putting a man's dick in another man's ass was okay with Jesus. Also there was some scripture that did point out how immoral actions caused 2 cities to just disappear. But you go ahead and keep using the Rules for Radicals, I know how you think, it is all about turning this great country into a 3rd world shithole.

You are a dumbass and I tire of your idiocy. good luck dumb ass. there are rules for judging. As far as dude on dude or girl on girl that is upto god not you. Go love yourself dumbass