LOL....its like watching the guy on the street yelling obsenities at passing cars.....keyboard Tourette's Syndrome. ....
The Homosexual Dilemma
- Thread starter saintmichaeldefendthem
- Start date
LOL....its like watching the guy on the street yelling obsenities at passing cars.....keyboard Tourette's Syndrome. ....
GreenBean
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2013
- 5,407
- 616
- 155
Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters. The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .
Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.
I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit . And based on your post .... are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!
GreenBean
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2013
- 5,407
- 616
- 155
Who gives a fkn rats ass ? I mean really ... give it up
I think I should just copy and paste that for every single post of yours......so completely applicable.
Why do you ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
More specifically- why do you ignore the majority of child molestation victims?
Why?
Because all of your posts are intended only to attack homosexuals, and you don't give a rat's ass about how much that will harm children.
Bigots like you lead to parents leaving their kids with openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky- because those boys and girls will be 'safe' as long as the guy is not a homosexual.....according to you bigots.
GreenBean
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2013
- 5,407
- 616
- 155
I guess you just don't get it do you ? ...Of course you don't - you're a ****** , and no a very bright one at that.
The Title of this thread - THE HOMOSEXUAL DILEMMA
The Topic of this thread - THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO SOCIETY BY HOMOSEXUALS
You're bringing in remotely relevant facts re: heterosexual molestation is merely an attempt to distract from the fact that Homosexual males are the most prolific child molestors within the Human Race . Do heterosexuals do it also ? ...of course they do HOWEVER Homosexual males represent about 3% of the population , yet are responsible for abou 1/3 of all child molestation case ... in effect the chances of your child being molested by a Homosexual are aproximately 300X greater than a heterosexual.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #3,707
http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter 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.
The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #3,708
You draw faulty assumptions, as bigots like you often do. Focusing on one part of an issue does not mean ignoring other parts. I've been a strong advocate of sex offender registries and lengthy and even life prison terms for molesting children.....on other threads where that's the topic of discussion. Your assumption makes an ASS out of you and you. Here's we're discussing homosexuality which invariably involves pederasty because homosexual attractions don't draw the same lines as our penal code does. What's amazing to me is that you accuse me of pretending a problem doesn't exist when in fact, you're doing that right now, pretending that gay men aren't more likely than any other sector of society to molest boys.
You got your head up your ASSumptions and pretending everyone else does too.
Bigot.
No faulty assumption at all- I am pointing out your actual posting pattern here on US Message boards
You were speaking of the Vatican and child molestation by priests- yet you made not one mention of the female victims of priests sexual molestation.
So why is it you and other bigots 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 you and other bigots 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(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?
http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter 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.
The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.
That was the original claim- and then you lied in your response to the original claim.
But heck- not the first time I have pointed out that you have lied and had you just declare you are right and run away.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #3,711
I"m not answering the same question twice, especially after I demonstrated your question makes you look like a raging moron. Bye.
I don't get your bigotry and hate- no I don't. I don't understand why someone would spend his time sharing his hate with the rest of the world.
I don't understand why anyone would endanger children by spreading a false narrative- why anyone- would be telling parents "Its the Homosexual men that are a danger to your children" when the majority of victims are girls, and the majority of molesters of boys are openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky.
No- as a man who has been happily married to my gorgious wife for over 20 years, and as a father- no I don't understand the tiny minded bigotry you espouse.
Luckily your kind of bigotry is rapidly becoming as popular as the guy yelling "***** slap n*ggers until they stop being so uppity".
bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,714
They did. And I posted the audio of the Loving arguments. You have already stated you are too lazy to listen thru it. Have you done so since then? If you had, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself AGAIN like this.
http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter 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.
The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #3,715
They did. And I posted the audio of the Loving arguments. You have already stated you are too lazy to listen thru it. Have you done so since then? If you had, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself AGAIN like this.
http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter 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.
The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.
I'm not sitting through an hour and a half audio for something I know isn't there. If indeed the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments made by the Virginia AG, as you falsely claimed, there would have been commentary about it in articles that can be referenced. You claim to have a family, I really do. And if you really were a family woman, you would know better than to think a father and husband has an hour and a half to spend chasing down phantoms of your Leftist imagination.
If you don't have an actual link to comments made about the jocular reaction of the justices, then STFU.
Where_r_my_Keys
Gold Member
- Jan 19, 2014
- 15,272
- 1,853
- 280
- Banned
- #3,716
Private... we want you to keep your deviancy private... You need to be offended by that... and that's fine.
But when you and your bestee are being dragged from your home, just before that round cracks through and scrambles your eggs... see if you can keep from wishing that you had just kept your private life, private.
And that's not a threat from me... normalizing sexual abnormality is a symptom of a dying culture. History requires that culture's which do so, either collapse or are conquered, shortly there after. And without regard to which way the end comes, the next order of business, either by those building a new nation or the conqueror set to work cleansing the culture of homosexuals. SLAMMING the door to the proverbial closet... once again.
So it's just a function of nature.
And all because you idiots can't find the strength of character to recognize that you have the freedom to just BE... whatever the **** ya want. You can playhouse with your bestee, visit in hospital, receive retirement benefits and ya can do that in any state in the US RIGHT NOW, through the forming of an LLC.
It's a simple formula, which has played out time and again throughout history and it is WHY you keep getting your swollen asses tossed back into the closet... You're IRRATIONAL and destructive to cultural viability.
Where_r_my_Keys
Gold Member
- Jan 19, 2014
- 15,272
- 1,853
- 280
- Banned
- #3,717
Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.
100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #3,719
where_r_my_keys merely keeps carrying the same old baggage.
What is funny is that he thinks he is an authority on any of this stuff.
What is funny is that he thinks he is an authority on any of this stuff.
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
There's about 2 billion Christians in the world, about 1.6 billion Muslims but only 14 million Jews. By your logic Jews are abnormal and thus perverse.
