APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You anti-gay marriage supporters keep throwing out the word "traditional" and seem to be turning a blind eye to the FACT that "traditional" has had many changes through our history.

The predominately religious institution of marriage was introduced by Martin Luther in the early 1500's, and has not changed one iota. It is still the foundational union of a man and woman, for the express purpose of procreation and family. It has never been anything other than this. NEV-ER!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

This is not about what is "normal" in societal culture! This is about what is clinically and scientifically the "norm" for the species. You misinterpret my usage of the word, and try to imply I am a bigot or homphobe, or that I want to dictate what is "normal" for you.

"...clinically and scientifically..."!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Please explain what is "clinically and scientifically" wrong with a gay marriage.

Let me get a beer and some popcorn; because this is going to be really amusing.




















OK, I'm ready.
Go for it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What do you intend to do, when the Supreme Court talls you that you're all wrong and that you're attempt is unconstitutional.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court does not overrule Constitutional Amendments.
Did you fail Government 101?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, I wasn't the one who made this an issue, YOU WERE PINHEAD! If sexuality isn't YOUR issue, then we can settle this with comprehensive civil unions legislation. END OF DISCUSSION...MATCH...SET...POINT!

good lord.....

your first post was about sexual behavior, then you claim it was me who brought it up....that is false and has been proven false. you are not honest enough to admit that.

fine, let's leave sex out of it.

marriage is a contract. under every state law.

do you agree or disagree?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The predominately religious institution of marriage was introduced by Martin Luther in the early 1500's, and has not changed one iota. It is still the foundational union of a man and woman, for the express purpose of procreation and family. It has never been anything other than this. NEV-ER!

So plural marriages were deviant??

And at that time arranged marriages were the NORM.
Are you suggesting that we rerutn to what was the NORM, at that time??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court does not overrule Constitutional Amendments.
Did you fail Government 101?

In your angst; you fail to realize that you're attempt will crumble, way before you get any where near passing anything.

But you go ahead and keep trying; because it will at least keep you off the street and out of trouble.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"...clinically and scientifically..."!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Please explain what is "clinically and scientifically" wrong with a gay marriage.

Why do you want to pervert what I said? Is that a typical reaction of perverts? I never said anything was clinically and scientifically "wrong" with anything... try reading it again, and be HONEST about the words you see!

Gay marriage is an oxymoron, there is no such thing as gay marriage. That's what is wrong with it.

...NEXT?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

good lord.....

your first post was about sexual behavior, then you claim it was me who brought it up....that is false and has been proven false. you are not honest enough to admit that.

fine, let's leave sex out of it.

marriage is a contract. under every state law.

do you agree or disagree?

.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Why do you want to pervert what I said? Is that a typical reaction of perverts? I never said anything was clinically and scientifically "wrong" with anything... try reading it again, and be HONEST about the words you see!

Gay marriage is an oxymoron, there is no such thing as gay marriage. That's what is wrong with it.

...NEXT?

So you're saying that you didn't post the following??

This is not about what is "normal" in societal culture! This is about what is clinically and scientifically the "norm" for the species. You misinterpret my usage of the word, and try to imply I am a bigot or homphobe, or that I want to dictate what is "normal" for you.

And at one time, there was no such thing normal about an inter-racial marriage either.

Care to explain that??
Or are you just going to continue to attempt to juggle your points??

You do a good job of juggling; but you really need to work on the back-pedaling.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In your angst; you fail to realize that you're attempt will crumble, way before you get any where near passing anything.

But you go ahead and keep trying; because it will at least keep you off the street and out of trouble.

Not really. State ratification by 3/4 of the states get's er done! In the most liberal states of America, this Gay Marriage shit is failing by 70% or more at the ballot box, so it should be a cake walk to ratify such an amendment to the constitution. So you keep pushing it, keep insulting people and shitting on what they have to say, rejecting the kind of common sense reasoning I have proposed with Civil Unions (again, which I favor), and eventually, a Constitutional Amendment to protect Traditional Marriage, is exactly what you are going to get. Then it will all be settled once and for all, I won't have to hear your whiny liberal mouth running night and day about this idiocy of Gay Marriage!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Not really. State ratification by 3/4 of the states get's er done! In the most liberal states of America, this Gay Marriage shit is failing by 70% or more at the ballot box, so it should be a cake walk to ratify such an amendment to the constitution. So you keep pushing it, keep insulting people and shitting on what they have to say, rejecting the kind of common sense reasoning I have proposed with Civil Unions (again, which I favor), and eventually, a Constitutional Amendment to protect Traditional Marriage, is exactly what you are going to get. Then it will all be settled once and for all, I won't have to hear your whiny liberal mouth running night and day about this idiocy of Gay Marriage!

do you think loving v. virginia has no legal force?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

good lord.....

your first post was about sexual behavior, then you claim it was me who brought it up....that is false and has been proven false. you are not honest enough to admit that.

fine, let's leave sex out of it.

marriage is a contract. under every state law.

do you agree or disagree?

..

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you're saying that you didn't post the following??



You do a good job of juggling; but you really need to work on the back-pedaling.

No back pedaling.. .what the hell are you talking about?

In a CLINICAL sense, from a SCIENTIFIC perspective... when SMART PEOPLE study animals and their NORMAL habits, they don't observe homosexuality! When they do observe homosexuality, it is not the NORM... it is ABNORMAL... out of the ordinary... not what normally happens with the species.... contradictory to the otherwise normal condition.... DO YOU FUCKING COMPREHEND THAT OR DO WE NEED THE COLORING BOOK????

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not really. State ratification by 3/4 of the states get's er done! In the most liberal states of America, this Gay Marriage shit is failing by 70% or more at the ballot box, so it should be a cake walk to ratify such an amendment to the constitution. So you keep pushing it, keep insulting people and shitting on what they have to say, rejecting the kind of common sense reasoning I have proposed with Civil Unions (again, which I favor), and eventually, a Constitutional Amendment to protect Traditional Marriage, is exactly what you are going to get. Then it will all be settled once and for all, I won't have to hear your whiny liberal mouth running night and day about this idiocy of Gay Marriage!

And they will eventually be struck down as un-constitutional.
Using SM's words; you seem to be in a full blown hissy, over this.

I'm beginning to think that your "signficant other" will demand a wedding and you'll be outed.

By the way, referring to me as a Liberal, is as funny as you thinking that marriage will always be just between a man and a woman.
:lol:

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No back pedaling.. .what the hell are you talking about?

In a CLINICAL sense, from a SCIENTIFIC perspective... when SMART PEOPLE study animals and their NORMAL habits, they don't observe homosexuality! When they do observe homosexuality, it is not the NORM... it is ABNORMAL... out of the ordinary... not what normally happens with the species.... contradictory to the otherwise normal condition.... DO YOU FUCKING COMPREHEND THAT OR DO WE NEED THE COLORING BOOK????

Gee Dixie; you really need to sign off for a while and let your blood preassure come down some.
I'm worried that you're going to suffer a stroke or something.

Societies idea of what is NORMAL and what isn't, is constantly changing and I'm sorry that it scares you so much.

It's also not normal for animals to stay in a relationship where no offspring are produced, except for humans; so I guess that those marriages are ABNORMAL, using your narrow vision.

Just curious, how long have you been married and how many times has your wife been pregnant; because at one time it was considered normal for a woman to have many children and to almost be constantly pregnant.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And they will eventually be struck down as un-constitutional.
Using SM's words; you seem to be in a full blown hissy, over this.

I'm beginning to think that your "signficant other" will demand a wedding and you'll be outed.

By the way, referring to me as a Liberal, is as funny as you thinking that marriage will always be just between a man and a woman.
:lol:

I wish you would go read about constitutional amendments before you make any more of a total fool of yourself here. The United States Supreme Court, (or any other court of the land), can't "strike down" a Constitutional Amendment, it becomes a part of the Constitution itself, and can't be "struck down" by ANY court! I am sorry you thought we lived in a Monarchy ruled by nine people, we don't.

As for what you think are insults toward me, it shows how void of a point you really are. I don't blame you for not wanting to be associated with liberalism, but that is where you've aligned yourself on this issue, sorry... the label fits, wear it with gay pride!

Presenting MY position once again for the mentally vacant ones here... and please try to read the next paragraph before responding to me further on this issue, because I really think you don't understand my position at all....

I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

So tell me, what part of my idea are you opposed to?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I wish you would go read about constitutional amendments before you make any more of a total fool of yourself here. The United States Supreme Court, (or any other court of the land), can't "strike down" a Constitutional Amendment, it becomes a part of the Constitution itself, and can't be "struck down" by ANY court! I am sorry you thought we lived in a Monarchy ruled by nine people, we don't.

As for what you think are insults toward me, it shows how void of a point you really are. I don't blame you for not wanting to be associated with liberalism, but that is where you've aligned yourself on this issue, sorry... the label fits, wear it with gay pride!

Presenting MY position once again for the mentally vacant ones here... and please try to read the next paragraph before responding to me further on this issue, because I really think you don't understand my position at all....

I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

So tell me, what part of my idea are you opposed to?

1. It'll be ruled unconstitutional, long before the bigots will be able to even get close to having anything included in the Constitution.

2. Nice attempt at a backhanded insult (gay pride); but it just shows the hissy your having. :tantrum:

3. The idea of marriage isn't going to go away and you'll just have to accept the fact that gays are eventually going to be allowed to marry.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No back pedaling.. .what the hell are you talking about?

In a CLINICAL sense, from a SCIENTIFIC perspective... when SMART PEOPLE study animals and their NORMAL habits, they don't observe homosexuality! When they do observe homosexuality, it is not the NORM... it is ABNORMAL... out of the ordinary... not what normally happens with the species.... contradictory to the otherwise normal condition.... DO YOU FUCKING COMPREHEND THAT OR DO WE NEED THE COLORING BOOK????

they will never understand, Dixie....I've given up....

 

[DamnYankee]

My morality is not determined by the Bible.

Yet society's is.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1. It'll be ruled unconstitutional, long before the bigots will be able to even get close to having anything included in the Constitution.

2. Nice attempt at a backhanded insult (gay pride); but it just shows the hissy your having. :tantrum:

3. The idea of marriage isn't going to go away and you'll just have to accept the fact that gays are eventually going to be allowed to marry.

If gay activists continue to push, and courts continue to overturn the will of the people, a Constitutional Amendment will be the ultimate result. It needs ratification by 3/4 of the states, and we know Gay Marriage has failed in 31 states already, and failed miserably.

I think you misunderstand how this works, if a Constitutional Amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution itself, and supersedes any past decision of the courts. So it is impossible for the court to rule something unconstitutional, and prevent it from becoming a Constitutional Amendment... in fact, that is precisely how most Constitutional Amendments came about. The court made a ruling that something couldn't be done under the constitution, and we amended the constitution. This is different from an act or a law, those can be found unconstitutional by the court.