The Homosexual Dilemma

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

 

[GreenBean]

Hey ****** LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon. Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags

Try a better bourbon. The cheap stuff clearly kills more brain cells.

Not a problem - I have plenty to spare - but thanks for your concern

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

The only dilemma is your trollish posts which fortunately is easily solved. Permanent ignore.

 

[GreenBean]

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

Yes - those gay pedophiles have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.

War against the Boy Scouts.

 

[GreenBean]

. I've not lied, I simply pointed out where you were mistaken.

And the truly sad part is - that she actually half believes some of the shit she posts ... sad ... very sad indeed ..what a waste of a human life.

 

[GreenBean]

Hey ****** LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon. Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags

Mean drunk?

LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

stmike puts on Ignore those who make him look that the fool he is so adamantly determined to be.

Soon he will be talking only to Sil and Where r my Keys.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

The only dilemma is your trollish posts which fortunately is easily solved. Permanent ignore.

Bring up that pesty priest problem and you hit the ignore button.....Catholics DO so love their uneven playing ground.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

stmike puts on Ignore those who make him look that the fool he is so adamantly determined to be.

Soon he will be talking only to Sil and Where r my Keys.

And pretty soon it will be just Saint Mike and the guy in his mirror.

So let's discuss that pesty priest problem.....I suspect that only 15% of the actual molestation by Catholic priests has been reported. And....[[[shocker]]]] I think same said priests are .....HOMOSEXUALS!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Hey ****** LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon. Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags

Try a better bourbon. The cheap stuff clearly kills more brain cells.

Not a problem - I have plenty to spare - but thanks for your concern

This is the best, or at least one of them:

And it is swilling in my carefully crafted Manhattan as we speak.

Pure ambrosia.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

Yes - those gay pedophiles have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.

War against the Boy Scouts.

That links to a blog called loonybird.com

My advice: Put down the glass and back away from the table.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Where did everybody go? Did I expose a gaping hole of hypocrisy in the O/P?

Saint Mike, here's the deal. Fix your own house first.

 

[GreenBean]

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

Yes - those gay pedophiles have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.

War against the Boy Scouts.

That links to a blog called loonybird.com

My advice: Put down the glass and back away from the table.

My advice to you - stop trolling , if you can't refute the facts than STFU - you've already lost - regardless of what a sites url is

The Wall Street Journal stated in its Nov. 26, 2004 editorial page titled "Bashing the Boy Scouts," that:
"Legal historians may someday explain how the once-great American Civil Liberties Union came to see the Boy Scouts as public enemy number one. In the meantime, the ACLU keeps on bringing its absurd First Amendment challenges against the Scouts....The question no one seems to be asking is, who's better off as a result of these lawsuits? Surely not the 3.2 million Boy Scouts, whose venerable organization is part of the web of voluntary associations once considered the bedrock of American life. If anything, the purpose of the ACLU attacks is to paint Scouts as religious bigots. Other losers are communities themselves, which are forced to sever ties to an organization that helps to build character in young men. It's been 20 years since the ACLU brought its first suit against the Scouts. If there's one thing we've learned by now, it's that the ACLU offensive says more about the degraded status of the civil liberties group than it does about the Boy Scouts."

Not only the ACLU , but

Lambda [Pedophiles and Child Molesters Group]

Mexican-American Legal Defense

NOW

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

American Federation of Teachers

Anti-Defamation League, California Women's Law Center

Center for Women Policy Studies

Equal Rights Advocates, Human Rights Campaign

National Partnership for Women and Families

National Women's Law Center

Northwest Women's Law Center

People for the American Way Foundation

Women Employed and the Women's Law Project

And a battalions of other Loony left and liberal organizations have ganged up on this stalwart of American Morals and Decency. The cost to the Boy Scouts has been tremendous, and they show signs of crumbling under at the very least the tremendous financial burden

 

[Syriusly]

[ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .

You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?

Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty. It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.

50 shades of gay. You can't escape from the truth.

Two things:

Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

 

[Syriusly]

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

Yes - those gay pedophiles have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.

War against the Boy Scouts.

That links to a blog called loonybird.com

My advice: Put down the glass and back away from the table.

My advice to you - stop trolling ,

LOL.....coming from you.....that is hilarious.....next I expect you to advise posters to watch their profanity....

 

[Syriusly]

. I've not lied, I simply pointed out where you were mistaken.

And the truly sad part is - that she actually half believes some of the shit she posts ... sad ... very sad indeed ..what a waste of a human life.

And the truly sad part is - that Greenbean actually believes some of the shit she posts ... sad ... very sad indeed ..what a waste of a human life

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike? NOW that's a dilemma.

Yes - those gay pedophiles have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.

War against the Boy Scouts.

LOL- citing your own website of homophobia again?

What is the history of the Boy Scouts?

The Boy Scouts have always banned homosexuals from being scout leaders. And that clearly didn't protect scouts since
the Boy Scouts had a long history of child sex abuse that the BSA covered up.

Boy Scout files reveal long history of child sex abuse cases - Chicago Tribune

Since at least 1919, the Boy Scouts has maintained the internal files to keep suspected pedophiles from re-entering the organization. But in a number of cases, the files show, the organization failed to take proper steps in suspected cases of abuse.

The organization currently requires even suspected cases of child molestation to be reported immediately to law enforcement officials, conducts criminal background checks, and prohibits one-on-one contact between an adult and a Scout. The group now rigorously trains volunteers and leaders to spot signs of abuse.

Local police were involved in nearly two-thirds of the 1965-1985 cases, according to a recently-released analysis by the Boy Scouts.

But in scores of other cases, local Boy Scout leaders urged accused and admitted pedophiles to quietly resign without notifying authorities, or allowed them to return to scouting after being treated by doctors or clergy.

In one case, the files show that after a volunteer in Texas was expelled when he confessed to molesting Scouts in 1965, a local Scouting official wrote to the national office and said a minister that knew the man "is doing his best to protect Boy Scouting and trying to keep this incident as quiet as possible.

"However, if some parents file charges, of course it will come out into the public."

In 1980, the files show, another Colorado Scout leader was accused of sexually molesting three Scout brothers. He was arrested and charged with sex abuse after the boys' father went to police. Months later, the father learned the man - out on bail - had been allowed to return to Scouting.

This is another example of where homophobic bigots like yourself endanger children.

You telling parents that the only child molesters that they need to fear are homosexuals puts all children at risk. Most of these scout leaders were married husbands and fathers- openly heterosexual- who molested boys. Your kind of homophobia provides cover for them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .

You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?

Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty. It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.

50 shades of gay. You can't escape from the truth.

Two things:

Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.

 

[Syriusly]

You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

Like I pointed out before Saintboy-

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented. Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.

http://commlawreview.org/archives/c...ghter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf

In Chief Justice Robert’s
first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).

....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
the Court’s serious nature

.....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and the justices howled with laughter from his statement.

...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.

There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
The funniest justice DC Dicta

When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”

Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”


As the justices and onlookers laughed, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.

“You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.

In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

[ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .

You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?

Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty. It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.

50 shades of gay. You can't escape from the truth.

Two things:

Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.

No problem- let me rephrase

Two things:

Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he thinks child molesters should be?