T1B

For example, does a black man have a right to shop with white people? Do Jews have a right to live in Darien?

schmick wrote:Queers dont want to get married they are just pushing for it because the religious right doesnt want them to be able to and the queer agenda has always been to force their vile and disgusting lifestyle in to normal peoples face. Look at the parades they take "pride" in, what other proof of their agenda do you need?

On top of that they're always leaving their homosexual agenda literature in hotel rooms all across the country to get their way.

Oh wait....

Diego in Seattle wrote: On top of that they're always leaving their homosexual agenda literature in hotel rooms all across the country to get their way.

Oh wait....

That's funny you bring that up given your line of questioning about consumers and jobs a few days ago.

You of all people should understand that hotels have bibles in rooms because they are in the business to provide a service/product the consumer wants.

If pictures of animal cruelty ddrove room rates, they would leave that in the bedside drawer, but the don't. Bibles are there instead.

Left Seater wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: On top of that they're always leaving their homosexual agenda literature in hotel rooms all across the country to get their way.

Oh wait....

That's funny you bring that up given your line of questioning about consumers and jobs a few days ago.

You of all people should understand that hotels have bibles in rooms because they are in the business to provide a service/product the consumer wants.

If pictures of animal cruelty ddrove room rates, they would leave that in the bedside drawer, but the don't. Bibles are there instead.

You gotta be fucking shitting me.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: On top of that they're always leaving their homosexual agenda literature in hotel rooms all across the country to get their way.

Oh wait....

That's funny you bring that up given your line of questioning about consumers and jobs a few days ago.

You of all people should understand that hotels have bibles in rooms because they are in the business to provide a service/product the consumer wants.

If pictures of animal cruelty ddrove room rates, they would leave that in the bedside drawer, but the don't. Bibles are there instead.

You gotta be fucking shitting me.

Granted the animal cruelty might have been a little much, but the point holds.

Bibles are only there because most are indifferent and the small group that appreciates them is far larger than the group that complains about them.

Gay Marriage

Gay: Homosexuality is nearly diametrically opposite of gay. It is vile, unnatural, unhealthy, and perverse.

Marriage: Through human history, involves the unity of male and female. This is common knowledge, "sky is blue" level stuff.

A term has been created, and perpetuated into mainstream acceptance, which is nonsensical.

poptart wrote:Gay Marriage

Gay: Homosexuality is nearly diametrically opposite of gay.

It may not make you happy, but it makes a lot of other people happy

It is vile, unnatural, unhealthy, and perverse.

And on what do you base this off of?

And a lot of people find guns to be vile. Should guns be banned, or should those people just not acquire them?

Marriage: Through human history, involves the unity of male and female. This is common knowledge, "sky is blue" level stuff.

You really want to go the tried & failed route of "that's the way it's always been done?" Slavery was around for centuries. Are you now going to argue that states should be allowed to decide on slavery because "it's the way it's been done for centuries?"

A term has been created, and perpetuated into mainstream acceptance, which is nonsensical.

What term would that be..."Equality?"

I didn't enter the thread to debate the issue -- and 88 has done an excellent job of speaking to things in light of our U.S. Constitution.

I just came in to note how I consider the very term, gay marriage, to be profoundly silly.

poptart wrote:I didn't enter the thread to debate the issue -- and 88 has done an excellent job of speaking to things in light of our U.S. Constitution.

I just came in to note how I consider the very term, gay marriage, to be profoundly silly.

Not surprising. There were people who felt the same way about interracial marriage before the Loving decision.

Interracial Marriage is and always has been, a correct term.

For one of many examples, it is seen in the Bible in Acts 18, with Priscilla and Aquila.

Americans did not allow interracial marriage, but they knew very well that such a thing did exist.

In contrast, it's not only that homosexual "marriage" has been outlawed, it's that it isn't even possible.
Two of the same sex is not, never has been, and never will be, a marriage.

You can call a dog a cat forever -----> and it still will never be one.


Look up gay in the dictionary.

- happy and excited : cheerful and lively -


One man sodomizing another man is the very opposite of gay.
It is a very sad event.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

It is vile, unnatural, unhealthy, and perverse.

And on what do you base this off of?

Stabbing another man's stool or having sperm injected up your ass is pretty much all of the above.

Diego in Seattle wrote: It may not make you happy, but it makes a lot of other people happy

No, it doesn't. Faggots and dykes are profoundly fucked up individuals and, at a very deep, fundamental level, they know it. They have a whole host of other mental problems to go along with their fucked up wiring.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk ... ls/0006527

It is vile, unnatural, unhealthy, and perverse.

And on what do you base this off of?

http://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-popu ... ct-MSM.htm

And a lot of people find guns to be vile.

Yes, mentally ill people frequently do find self-defense vile.

poptart wrote:Interracial Marriage is and always has been, a correct term.

For one of many examples, it is seen in the Bible in Acts 18, with Priscilla and Aquila.

Americans did not allow interracial marriage, but they knew very well that such a thing did exist.

In contrast, it's not only that homosexual "marriage" has been outlawed, it's that it isn't even possible.
Two of the same sex is not, never has been, and never will be, a marriage.

You can call a dog a cat forever -----> and it still will never be one.


Look up gay in the dictionary.

- happy and excited : cheerful and lively -


One man sodomizing another man is the very opposite of gay.
It is a very sad event.

Whether or not the term "marriage" appears in a book of fairy tales is irrelevant to who the government allows to marry. And there were homosexual relations in the Roman Empire as well, thumper.

Carson wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

It is vile, unnatural, unhealthy, and perverse.

And on what do you base this off of?

Stabbing another man's stool or having sperm injected up your ass is pretty much all of the above.

Other than it being another man's stool, many hetero couples enjoy the very activity that you describe. Beings that stool is stool, what's the difference between whether a hetero couple engages in such an activity or a couple of the same sex?

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: It may not make you happy, but it makes a lot of other people happy

No, it doesn't. Faggots and dykes are profoundly fucked up individuals and, at a very deep, fundamental level, they know it. They have a whole host of other mental problems to go along with their fucked up wiring.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk ... ls/0006527

You're going to say that the very nature of same-sex relationships is the cause for a difference in happiness when hetero couples don't face discrimination & ridicule?

When same-sex relationships are treated the same as hetero relationships, get back to me for a comparison. Until then, you have nothing.

It is vile, unnatural, unhealthy, and perverse.

And on what do you base this off of?

http://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-popu ... ct-MSM.htm

I'm sure glad that there's no transmission of STD's in hetero couple relationships.

And a lot of people find guns to be vile.

Yes, mentally ill people frequently do find self-defense vile.

Way to avoid my point, dickslap.

Many people would find a sado-masochist relationship vile & unnatural. Yet I don't see anyone trying to invalidate your marriage just because your wife beats you like Michael Vick beats his dogs.

Papa Willie wrote:Here's a few thoughts.

1. If fags will get married and shut the fuck up, I'm all for it.

I don't see why they wouldn't after being given the same access to marriage that heteros have.

2. Fags are not normal. 2-4% of the world's population does not indicate "normal".

Quoting the percentage of gay population in this country would be more applicable.

And so what if the percentage of gays in this country was in single digits (which I doubt)? This is not a country that the majority gets to rule on the rights & privileges of the minority.

3. Since we know liberals can no longer be religious, why can't fags just call it "union" so the thumpers will shut the fuck up?

That would only work if the government called all of these relationships "unions." If the thumpers want to have their own separate ceremony & call it a marriage, that's perfectly fine. But the government can't give one group "marriages" and the other "unions." Brown v. Board of Education out front should tell you that.

88,
I'm going to drop this here in case you missed it form the last page.

Moving Sale wrote:Nice dodge, but I will play... I'm unclear as to what you think the equal protection clause covers. What would be some examples of laws that a state might, or has passed, that violate the EP clause.

Besides the underlying case in Loving.

Diego in Seattle wrote: You're going to say that the very nature of same-sex relationships is the cause for a difference in happiness

Yes, that is exactly what I am going to say. The "very nature" of same-sex relationships is abnormal. It should come as no surprise to any rational individual that such defective units would also experience additional abnormalities beyond the desire to shoot off in another dude's hairy chili ring.

I'm sure glad that there's no transmission of STD's in hetero couple relationships.

Homosexual behavior is associated with a far higher incidence of STD transmission. That is a statistically undeniable fact. They know better yet they continue to engage in these risky behaviors. Why? Because they're fucked up freaks of nature, that's why.

Homosexual behavior almost always rises in overpopulated populations so it is totally normal to have a more vocal set when said set increases in relitive size and dykes have almost no stds in their population so once again you are wrong. How is the weather in Ofailure NB?

Moving Sale wrote:Homosexual behavior almost always rises in overpopulated populations

Link?

How is the weather in Ofailure NB?

40 degrees and sunny. Thanks for asking.

mvscal wrote:another dude's hairy chili ring

Jeebus

Moving Sale wrote:...and dykes have almost no stds in their population so once again you are wrong.

Or maybe I'm just not as stupid as you are.

Women Who Have Sex with Women
Women who have sex with women (WSW) are a diverse group with variations in sexual identity, sexual behaviors, sexual practices, and risk behaviors. Recent studies indicate that some WSW, particularly adolescents, young women, and women with both male and female partners, might be at increased risk for STDs and HIV as a result of certain reported risk behaviors (109-112). WSW are at risk for acquiring bacterial, viral, and protozoal infections from current and prior partners, both male and female. WSW should not be presumed to be at low or no risk for STDs based on sexual orientation.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2010/s ... ps.htm#wsw

mvscal wrote:...protozoal infections...

You hip to that, Dins? Your next skank hook-up could have a case of "Jurassic Pussy"...

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Homosexual behavior almost always rises in overpopulated populations

Link?

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/v ... ccess_etds
There is a follow up with monkeys and rabbits and the like but I'm too lazy to look.

40? What a hellhole.

Diego wrote:Whether or not the term "marriage" appears in a book of fairy tales is irrelevant to who the government allows to marry. And there were homosexual relations in the Roman Empire as well, thumper.

Of course there were homosexual relations in the Roman Empire.

Homo marriage, though?
Obscure.

there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period are obscure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage


On the other hand, interracial marriage has a long history.
It is a legit term.

Gay Marriage is a silly term.
It's sad how something so stupid can gain traction as a legitimate term.

Poptart is an outspoken defender of the Constitution and personal freedoms, and freedom from government interference...

right up until it offends his sensibilities.

I've posted many times on the issue, Dins.
I take the Ron Paul position.

Marriage needs no state sanction.
Free adults can choose to marry who they want.
Find a "clergy" to do the dealie for you, and there ya go.
Fine.

The issue is, marriage has come under state sanction, and we all know they will not be letting go of it.
So... a state must establish the standard for marriage.

The very obvious standard is one adult man/one adult woman.
Apart from that, one is just making up crazy bullshit.
Don't pass crazy bullshit off on people and expect them to nod and accept it.

Dins wrote:Poptart is an outspoken defender of the Constitution and personal freedoms, and freedom from government interference...

right up until it offends his sensibilities.

The homo "marriage" freaks are the ones butchering the Constitution, Dins.

88 has done a good job of speaking to that.

poptart wrote:Of course there were homosexual relations in the Roman Empire.

Of course. And wildly overstated as well. Why? Because the Romans considered it aberrant and scandalous behavior. Imagine someone reading this board 500 years from now. They would think everyone here was a pud oyster slurping choad gargler when, in fact, only about 85% of you are.

mvscal wrote:Imagine someone reading this board 500 years from now. They would think everyone here was a pud oyster slurping choad gargler when, in fact, only about 85% of you are.

Banner material there.

poptart wrote:On the other hand, interracial marriage has a long history.
It is a legit term

Scott wrote:So you're in favor of it then?

I don't oppose it.

Jsc wrote:Y'all need to do some reading about homosexuals in ancient Rome. Emperor Nero was in a same sex marriage, there was another emperor as well.

The Roman Empire crumbled, and it's not hard at all to understand why.

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed.

Europe likewise told God He was no longer needed, embraced the lie of homosexuality -- and now they are in a pitiful state, and being overrun by muslims.

America?
Can you see your future?

Poptart wrote: The Roman Empire crumbled, and it's not hard at all to understand why.

It happened after they embraced Christianity.

Jsc810 wrote:Y'all need to do some reading about homosexuals in ancient Rome. Emperor Nero was in a same sex marriage,.

Well, actually I do have a passing familiarity with Classical Rome. If you were to apply yourself diligently for the next 20 years, you might be able to catch up.

Ah yes, Nero, that paragon of Roman virtue and emotional stability. I assume you speak of Sporus. Sporus was a rent boy who caught Nero's eye due to his resemblance to Nero's recently deceased wife. Nero had him castrated and then dressed him up like a girl, called him by his dead wife's name and introduced him around town as his "Empress." I don't doubt that Nero buggered the poor sod with maniacal glee but the kid was his "wife" in the same way Caligula's horse was a "Senator."

So...there is your "same sex marriage" in ancient Rome. It was a mockery and a deliberate insult to the sensibilities of his comtemporaries. It doesn't appear that very much has changed. We elect monkeys to political office and indulge mentally disturbed perverts in their delusions of normality.

poptart wrote:The Roman Empire crumbled, and it's not hard at all to understand why.

It certainly had nothing to do with Nero. Now if even half of what has been written about him is true, he is probably one of the most twisted perverts to ever draw breath. As an administrator, surprisingly, he really wasn't all that bad. Rome certainly endured far worse. There were the usual brush fire wars and uprisings attendant with Empire but, overall, it was a period of relative peace and prosperity. His overthrow was more the result of the personal machinations of greedy plutocrats rather than out of any sense of rescuing the empire from an incompetent madman.

In a very different way, he fell into the same trap that snared Gaius Julius. He lost the support of the patrician class and they made deadly enemies even for an emperor. Augustus understood this and was very circumspect in his dealings with the Senate and made sure to give them meaningful authority and opportunities in the Empire.

mvscal wrote:Ah yes, Nero, that paragon of Roman virtue and emotional stability. I assume you speak of Sporus. Sporus was a rent boy who caught Nero's eye due to his resemblance to Nero's recently deceased wife. Nero had him castrated and then dressed him up like a girl, called him by his dead wife's name and introduced him around town as his "Empress." I don't doubt that Nero buggered the poor sod with maniacal glee but the kid was his "wife" in the same way Caligula's horse was a "Senator."

So...there is your "same sex marriage" in ancient Rome. It was a mockery and a deliberate insult to the sensibilities of his comtemporaries

lol

Scott wrote:I was thinking you'd offer a little stronger endorsement since you're in one

Sure, interracial marriage is good for me.
I seldom think of my wife in a "racial" way.
She's just my wife.
I guess other people notice it and think whatever they will about it.

B wrote:It happened (Roman Empire decline) after they embraced Christianity.

The rise of Christianity was a part of the story in the decline of the empire.
A combination of factors came together over time to create an eventual overwhelming instability.
Deeply entrenched decadence and corruption were surely important factors.

The "great" empire was a tool God used to advance the Life movement, imo.
Used tool - thrown in the trash.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Of course there were homosexual relations in the Roman Empire.

Of course. And wildly overstated as well. Why? Because the Romans considered it aberrant and scandalous behavior. Imagine someone reading this board 500 years from now. They would think everyone here was a pud oyster slurping choad gargler when, in fact, only about 85% of you are.

Nice white flag you black pole riding failure.

How is marriage covered by equal protection when marriage is never mentioned in the amendment?

Left Seater wrote:Diego

Most elective surgeries here already had a similar requirement. So the new abortion law just brings that up to existing standards.

If the law stating who can perform marriages is found unconstitutional then it will affect all states. Texas is just moving inline with many other states. Since JPs are elected they serve at the will of the people and are easily replaced.

As for the Univ Life Church or other such Internet nonsense Texas is tightening up their definition of clergy as well. A certificate one prints online is unlikely to be recognized today and this will only strengthen.

http://news.yahoo.com/abortion-debate-r ... itics.html#

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Breyer all pointed out that other procedures, including liposuctions, colonoscopies and dental surgeries, have higher complication rates and yet can be performed in facilities that do not meet the stringent standards.

Try again, Left Behinder.

mvscal wrote: The "very nature" of same-sex relationships is abnormal. It should come as no surprise to any rational individual that such defective units would also experience additional abnormalities... Because they're fucked up freaks of nature, that's why.

Okay, babs, your knuckle-dragging gibberish has a soul mate...and she's poised to put your toxic garbage into school text books across the land. Here, meet and greet..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... books.html

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Breyer all pointed out that other procedures, including liposuctions, colonoscopies and dental surgeries, have higher complication rates and yet can be performed in facilities that do not meet the stringent standards.

Try again, Left Behinder.

In the case of liposuction and dental surgeries, I suspect that "complication" generally means infection. Infection is a bad thing and left untreated, will certainly kill you dead, but it doesn't kill you in 15 minutes. An abortion that goes wrong, particularly later term abortions can result in the mother bleeding to death in short order. Not sure what the deal is with colonoscopies. I have had to and all I remember was a damn good nap each time.

Why do dems think that the mother's safety is not important? They use this excuse (falsely) as a reason for the barbaric practice of late term abortions. I am no holy roller asshole and to be quite honest, it isn't that high on my list of priorities, but when it comes to murdering a baby that is 100% viable when it can be delivered without considerable risk to the mother, yeah, I think that's kinda fukked up. And people that support it deserve to be retroactively aborted.