So...these religious freedom (aka anti tranny) laws are making liberals self-ban from here? YAY!

[Bob Blaylock]

The push to normalize faggotry and other degenerate filth spreading behaviors is all part of the Frankfurt School strategy to corrupt the west and introduce socialism.

It's not paranoia, it's a fact anyone interested in the truth can verify.

Karl Marx is well known to have regarded marriage and family as artifacts oft he type of “bourgeois” society that he wanted to exterminate. he called for the elimination of marriage, to be replaced with a collectivist-style “free love” system in which long-term relationships were to be discouraged, and any children were to be raised, not by their parents, but by the collective society. This principle never really caught on in any overtly Marxist nations, and we have, here in the United States,gone much farther in this direction than was ever seen under Marxism. The efforts to deny the differences between men and women is really an extreme manifestation of the Marxist attack on marriage and family.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The push to normalize faggotry and other degenerate filth spreading behaviors is all part of the Frankfurt School strategy to corrupt the west and introduce socialism.

It's not paranoia, it's a fact anyone interested in the truth can verify.

Karl Marx is well known to have regarded marriage and family as artifacts oft he type of “bourgeois” society that he wanted to exterminate. he called for the elimination of marriage, to be replaced with a collectivist-style “free love” system in which long-term relationships were to be discouraged, and any children were to be raised, not by their parents, but by the collective society. This principle never really caught on in any overtly Marxist nations, and we have, here in the United States,gone much farther in this direction than was ever seen under Marxism. The efforts to deny the differences between men and women is really an extreme manifestation of the Marxist attack on marriage and family.

Moronic, paranoid blathering and propaganda. Those advocating marriage equality and LGBT rights are in no way in pushing for the "elimination of marriage, to be replaced with a collectivist-style “free love” system in which long-term relationships were to be discouraged, and any children were to be raised, not by their parents, but by the collective society." To claim that is the case is just more or you mental illness coming through,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Moronic, paranoid blathering and propaganda. Those advocating marriage equality and LGBT rights are in no way in pushing for the "elimination of marriage, to be replaced with a collectivist-style “free love” system in which long-term relationships were to be discouraged, and any children were to be raised, not by their parents, but by the collective society." To claim that is the case is just more or you mental illness coming through,

The efforts to deny and disregard the essential differences between male and female is a direct attack at the very root of the concept of marriage. It's what Marx wanted, to an extreme degree that he surely could never have imagined.

If “marriage” means what ever any wrong-wing madman claims it to mean, rather than meaning what it has always been understood to mean, then it means nothing. If “male” and “female” mean what you perverts are now trying to claim them to mean, divorced from the biological reality on which they were based, then they now mean nothing.

You cannot change the biological reality that underpins the distinction between male and female, but if you can strip the term “marriage” of the meaning that it used to have, then that's effectively the same thing as having eliminated it.

I don't think Marx, in his wildest and most insane fantasies, could have imagined what his modern day followers are trying to do to sexuality and marriage. I think this even stretches, and probably exceeds, the limits of Orwell's imagination, to think that there would one day be a generation in which so many people truly didn't understand the distinction between male and female.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Moronic, paranoid blathering and propaganda. Those advocating marriage equality and LGBT rights are in no way in pushing for the "elimination of marriage, to be replaced with a collectivist-style “free love” system in which long-term relationships were to be discouraged, and any children were to be raised, not by their parents, but by the collective society." To claim that is the case is just more or you mental illness coming through,

The efforts to deny and disregard the essential differences between male and female is a direct attack at the very root of the concept of marriage. It's what Marx wanted, to an extreme degree that he surely could never have imagined.

If “marriage” means what ever any wrong-wing madman claims it to mean, rather than meaning what it has always been understood to mean, then it means nothing. If “male” and “female” mean what you perverts are now trying to claim them to mean, divorced from the biological reality on which they were based, then they now mean nothing.

You cannot change the biological reality that underpins the distinction between male and female, but if you can strip the term “marriage” of the meaning that it used to have, then that's effectively the same thing as having eliminated it.

I don't think Marx, in his wildest and most insane fantasies, could have imagined what his modern day followers are trying to do to sexuality and marriage. I think this even stretches, and probably exceeds, the limits of Orwell's imagination, to think that there would one day be a generation in which so many people truly didn't understand the distinction between male and female.

Blaylock, you can keep up your nonsensical ranting about how the world is going to hell all you want. Most people are not even thinking about same sex marriage and those of us who are sane, we know that the sky is not falling. That is the reality that YOU can't change. So keep on tormenting yourself over this. The voices in your head may quiet after a while, or not. I don't much care.

 

[OldLady]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

Nope. It was in a writing by Jefferson. And then upheld by the Supreme Court over and over.

 

[OldLady]

Moronic, paranoid blathering and propaganda. Those advocating marriage equality and LGBT rights are in no way in pushing for the "elimination of marriage, to be replaced with a collectivist-style “free love” system in which long-term relationships were to be discouraged, and any children were to be raised, not by their parents, but by the collective society." To claim that is the case is just more or you mental illness coming through,

The efforts to deny and disregard the essential differences between male and female is a direct attack at the very root of the concept of marriage. It's what Marx wanted, to an extreme degree that he surely could never have imagined.

If “marriage” means what ever any wrong-wing madman claims it to mean, rather than meaning what it has always been understood to mean, then it means nothing. If “male” and “female” mean what you perverts are now trying to claim them to mean, divorced from the biological reality on which they were based, then they now mean nothing.

You cannot change the biological reality that underpins the distinction between male and female, but if you can strip the term “marriage” of the meaning that it used to have, then that's effectively the same thing as having eliminated it.

I don't think Marx, in his wildest and most insane fantasies, could have imagined what his modern day followers are trying to do to sexuality and marriage. I think this even stretches, and probably exceeds, the limits of Orwell's imagination, to think that there would one day be a generation in which so many people truly didn't understand the distinction between male and female.

Some of us believe the relationship--social, emotional, legal--between two people is more important and the primary meaning of marriage, more than the biological sex of the parties. If your only objection is that one MUST have a penis and the other MUST have a vagina, that's kind of superficial, imo.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

Quit trying to change the subject.
Our discussion was about constitutionally protected rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The previous poster said "the phrase separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution as if that meant the separation could not be constitutionally supported. Whether the right to privacy applies to a woman's right to chose (I believe it does) is a different discussion than whether the right of privacy exists at all. Are you also saying the right to privacy, in any form, is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution?

If it isn't mentioned in the constitution, it's not a constitutional right.

And no, there is no *right* to privacy per se. That is NOT a constitutionally protected "right".

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

Quit trying to change the subject.
Our discussion was about constitutionally protected rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The previous poster said "the phrase separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution as if that meant the separation could not be constitutionally supported. Whether the right to privacy applies to a woman's right to chose (I believe it does) is a different discussion than whether the right of privacy exists at all. Are you also saying the right to privacy, in any form, is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution?

If it isn't mentioned in the constitution, it's not a constitutional right.

And no, there is no *right* to privacy per se. That is NOT a constitutionally protected "right".

Don't be silly. The Supreme Court has determined that the 1st 3rd 4th and 9th amendments create the right to privacy. Read Griswold v Conneticut
{{meta.pageTitle}}

 

[bodecea]

According to some here, child molesters are going to dress up as women in order to go into women's bathrooms. These are the same people who actually present their children to men in dresses (priests), even though they know its(the catholic church) a hot bed for pedophiles.

Just when you think RWNJ traitors can't get any more ridiculous, they come up with yet another pile of nonsense like this.

Child molesters dress like the former Speaker of the House of Representatives....the REPUBLICAN Speaker of the House of Representatives. Child molesters dress more like Josh Duggar.

 

[bodecea]

According to some here, child molesters are going to dress up as women in order to go into women's bathrooms. These are the same people who actually present their children to men in dresses (priests), even though they know its(the catholic church) a hot bed for pedophiles.

Just when you think RWNJ traitors can't get any more ridiculous, they come up with yet another pile of nonsense like this.

Hot beds for pedophiles are lib run public schools.

According to some here, child molesters are going to dress up as women in order to go into women's bathrooms. These are the same people who actually present their children to men in dresses (priests), even though they know its(the catholic church) a hot bed for pedophiles.

Just when you think RWNJ traitors can't get any more ridiculous, they come up with yet another pile of nonsense like this.

Hot beds for pedophiles are lib run public schools.

Yep and it's out of control, male and female teachers sexually assaulting students. It has to stop

You fools always use this as an excuse -

Child molestation takes place elsewhere so its okay to molest them in church.

Who said or wrote that idiotic statement?

Nobody, it's hyperbole because they can't refute that their precious public school system is littered with pedophiles

You spelled "Catholic" school system wrong.

 

[bodecea]

I challenge anyone here to go to the faggot ads on Craigslist for cities like Than Fran Thisco and Palm Sthprings, CA and come back here and tell us all these people aren't filthy degenerate scum. They ask for people to shit in their mouthes, offer to suck and fuck on random dicks...these wastes of flesh aren't worth pissing on if they were on fire, and I wouldn't do it anyway because their demented, sick minded selves would probably enjoy it.

Yes...tell us about your continuing "in-depth" research.

 

[bodecea]

First tranny I find in a men's room gets a world-class good old fashioned southern ass kicking.

That's a fact, faggot lovers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.....and what will you do when you are the one they are picking up off the floor?

 

[bodecea]

I don't see what's so free about when only a single religion gets to call the shots at the exclusion of all others.

I love how you Constitution scholars are so adept at Separation of Church and State.

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

Quit trying to change the subject.
Our discussion was about constitutionally protected rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The previous poster said "the phrase separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution as if that meant the separation could not be constitutionally supported. Whether the right to privacy applies to a woman's right to chose (I believe it does) is a different discussion than whether the right of privacy exists at all. Are you also saying the right to privacy, in any form, is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution?

If it isn't mentioned in the constitution, it's not a constitutional right.

And no, there is no *right* to privacy per se. That is NOT a constitutionally protected "right".

No constitutional right to separation of church and state? Good! Now the state can tell religion what to do and how to behave. Yay!

 

[bodecea]

I challenge anyone here to go to the faggot ads on Craigslist for cities like Than Fran Thisco and Palm Sthprings, CA and come back here and tell us all these people aren't filthy degenerate scum. They ask for people to shit in their mouthes, offer to suck and fuck on random dicks...these wastes of flesh aren't worth pissing on if they were on fire, and I wouldn't do it anyway because their demented, sick minded selves would probably enjoy it.

Yes...tell us about your continuing "in-depth" research.

This is your problem, you're a stupid ass dike that drags your pussy on the ground. You first ask me how I know what I know about you filthy pieces of trash...then when I tell you how, you try to label me a fellow piece of human trash like yourself.

Well I'm not nor will ever be, so try a new tactic. I will continue to prove you are the trash that you are.

You poor thing. All your research......all your experimentation....and still you are eyeball deep in self-hate. I do indeed pity you in your closeted state.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You spelled "Catholic" school system wrong.

Wait you mindless skank, are you REALLY claiming that Catholic schools have MORE instances of molestation than the public schools?

Are you lying, or are you really this fucking stupid?

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

You spelled "Catholic" school system wrong.

Wait you mindless skank, are you REALLY claiming that Catholic schools have MORE instances of molestation than the public schools?

Are you lying, or are you really this fucking stupid?

I will say the Catholic Church feeds more people in this world
And provides healthcare to more in this world than any queer nation church will ever dream of doing

 

[Spare_change]

I've read the Constitution several times and studied it in law school and the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not actually in there.

The phrase "right to privacy" is not in the constitution either. Do you want to argue that isn't valid either?

Well you say a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. What if she chooses her body doesn't want to shower with a strange man? You saying she doesn't have a choice?

Quit trying to change the subject.
Our discussion was about constitutionally protected rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The previous poster said "the phrase separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution as if that meant the separation could not be constitutionally supported. Whether the right to privacy applies to a woman's right to chose (I believe it does) is a different discussion than whether the right of privacy exists at all. Are you also saying the right to privacy, in any form, is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution?

If it isn't mentioned in the constitution, it's not a constitutional right.

And no, there is no *right* to privacy per se. That is NOT a constitutionally protected "right".

Don't be silly. The Supreme Court has determined that the 1st 3rd 4th and 9th amendments create the right to privacy. Read Griswold v Conneticut
{{meta.pageTitle}}

Griswold vs Connecticut?

Was that in Christmas Vacation?

 

[Pete7469]

You need to be censored bubba

Thank God RegressiveParasite does not have that authority. It's amusing to see fascist pieces of shit like that defend perversion and pretend it is not an agenda of the left to marginalize traditional morals and values that helped make this country great.

Notice that in all the collectivist countries whose governments destroyed churches, no one was advocating a fudge packer lifestyle. There are no pillow biters dressed as split tails demanding shit in any of the socialist hell holes, because something that ridiculous could only be done in places like America where pieces of shit like RegressiveParasite who have nothing better to do can be kept alive at tax payers expense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I truly, from the bottom of my heart mean that RegressiveParasite.

Sincerely and with utter contempt,
Fuck You.

Ted Cruz Continues False Smear Campaign Against Transgender Americans

Today, HRC released the following statement after Senator Ted Cruz continued his transphobic attacks on NBC’s Meet the Press and CNN’s State of the Union this morning.

“After invoking the importance of the Bill of Rights, Ted Cruz had the gall to spread vicious lies about transgender people and laws that deny us critical freedoms,” said HRC Communications Director Jay Brown. “Ted Cruz’s fear-mongering campaign about attacks in restrooms has never been documented in the decades that more than 100 local non-discrimination protections have existed. The reason we need these local laws in the first place is because Congress has yet to pass a federal law protecting LGBT people, who are at risk of being fired, evicted or denied services in a majority of states because of who they are. Ted Cruz showed us firsthand today how important it is that we elect Hillary Clinton to fight for full federal equality in November.”

Fact checkers have found “there’s no evidence of dangerous predators pretending to be transgender in American bathrooms…” while Politifact rated Ted Cruz’s ad attacking Donald Trump on this issue as “mostly false,” saying “the overall message is highly distorted to scare voters.”

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Take a break --- cut the personal sniping.. And determine if you have
any REAL contribution to the topic. Before you post again...

Especially if you got a post deletion alert..