Same Sex Marriage

[Guest]

The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is legal in all the USA.

Rubio was saying today when (?) he is President, he will repeal that. Obviously, he does not realize the law of the land as pronounced by the Supreme Court cannot be repealled by the President or Congress.

I think the only way would be a Constitutional amendment that would take ratification by 3/4 of the states.

You would think that a presidential candidate would know that but maybe he is just counting on enough ignorant voters not to know what a president can and cannot do.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is legal in all the USA.

Rubio was saying today when (?) he is President, he will repeal that. Obviously, he does not realize the law of the land as pronounced by the Supreme Court cannot be repealled by the President or Congress.

I think the only way would be a Constitutional amendment that would take ratification by 3/4 of the states.

You would think that a presidential candidate would know that but maybe he is just counting on enough ignorant voters not to know what a president can and cannot do.

It worked for Obama.

[Guest]

It worked for Obama.

I am talking about one topic here that is the law of the land and a comment from Rubio that he would repeal it.

How could the law of the land be repealed by a President?

[Guest]

Rubio could just as easily proposed what Obama does when he disagrees with a law of the land he dislikes......just do not enforce it. Illegal immigration laws for example or no enforcement of entry laws into the USA.

[Guest]

I am talking about one topic here that is the law of the land and a comment from Rubio that he would repeal it.

How could the law of the land be repealed by a President?

Had you taken the time to read it, it should have been obvious to you that my response was to the part of the quote that I highlight in bold print.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is legal in all the USA.

Rubio was saying today when (?) he is President, he will repeal that. Obviously, he does not realize the law of the land as pronounced by the Supreme Court cannot be repealled by the President or Congress.

I think the only way would be a Constitutional amendment that would take ratification by 3/4 of the states.

You would think that a presidential candidate would know that but maybe he is just counting on enough ignorant voters not to know what a president can and cannot do.

He did NOT say that. I heard what he said, and he did NOT say he would repeal it. You are baiting again, looking for attention.

[Guest]

Rubio said that it is a state's right to define marriage, not the federal gov. He did NOT say he would repeal it. He said he would not change the Constitution. He did not say he would repeal any law regarding same sex marriage. This is just a campaign of misinformation perpetrated by deviant liberals.

[Guest]

Besides, what's the harm? Just let the fudge packers and rug munchers do what they want.

[Guest]

Besides, what's the harm? Just let the fudge packers and rug munchers do what they want.

:agree:... :evil6:

[Guest]

Marriage has no meaning anyway. As that tramp says about the death of four patriots, "what difference does it make?"

[Guest]

Rubio said that it is a state's right to define marriage, not the federal gov. He did NOT say he would repeal it. He said he would not change the Constitution. He did not say he would repeal any law regarding same sex marriage. This is just a campaign of misinformation perpetrated by deviant liberals.

"Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio suggested that the justices he nominates to the Supreme Court may roll back marriage equality"

Repeal: revoke, rescind, cancel, reverse, annul, nullify, declare null and void, quash, abolish

[Guest]

Whatever Rubio says about anything is irrelevant - he has as much chance of winning the nomination, let alone being elected, as Junior did finding any WMD's.

[Guest]

Whatever Rubio says about anything is irrelevant - he has as much chance of winning the nomination, let alone being elected, as Junior did finding any WMD's.

I agree! :agree::agree::agree:

[Guest]

Whatever Rubio says about anything is irrelevant - he has as much chance of winning the nomination, let alone being elected, as Junior did finding any WMD's.

Your ignorance is showing. Better tuck you slip back in.

[Guest]

"Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio suggested that the justices he nominates to the Supreme Court may roll back marriage equality"

Repeal: revoke, rescind, cancel, reverse, annul, nullify, declare null and void, quash, abolish

Ah, I know what repeal means, but I have yet to see his quote where he used that term. Taking a bit of leeway with the truth, are you? I'm sure you can find it, right? Or, did someone tell you this and you repeated like the liberal sheeple have a tendency to do?

[Guest]

Whatever Rubio says about anything is irrelevant - he has as much chance of winning the nomination, let alone being elected, as Junior did finding any WMD's.

You liberals would be better off with Rubio as president than Trump. And you know that the Democrat establishment writing on the way says that they will not allow Hillary or Sanders to get the election. They will ultimately sacrifice the election to the GOP rather than have either of the two as president. SO, you might want to think on that. Why do you think Bloomie is getting ready to run as an Independent? To take away the wining vote of either Democrat candidate.

[Guest]

The Trumpster still is my boy for the Floriduh primary. The idea is to get him to win primaries, have the RNC diss him by not having him as their nominee, Trumpster will go third party and Hillary wins!

It was the plan all along! :a040:

[Guest]

The Trumpster still is my boy for the Floriduh primary. The idea is to get him to win primaries, have the RNC diss him by not having him as their nominee, Trumpster will go third party and Hillary wins!

It was the plan all along! :a040:

Sounds good! Just one question----why would anyone with even 2 functional brain cells want Hilary to win?

[Guest]

Sounds good! Just one question----why would anyone with even 2 functional brain cells want Hilary to win?
Because she is a Democrat. It is that simple.

[Guest]

Sounds good! Just one question----why would anyone with even 2 functional brain cells want Hilary to win?

Because he is an idiot? But, he is just a kid playing with the adults. Everyone with the IQ of a water balloon knows that liberals don't have enough motivation to follow his juvenile scheme. Even if they were intelligent enough to understand his idea, they would just laugh at him.

[Guest]

Ah, I know what repeal means, but I have yet to see his quote where he used that term. Taking a bit of leeway with the truth, are you? I'm sure you can find it, right? Or, did someone tell you this and you repeated like the liberal sheeple have a tendency to do?

sheeple?

"Taking a bit of leeway with the truth"

Since you do not know how, or are to lazy to search on the internet, I will do it for you. Know what your commenting about before you do, it shows you are a buffoon.

Marco Rubio Suggests His Supreme Court Would Roll Back Marriage Equality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-meet-the-press-marriage_us_566d9098e4b0fccee16ee695)

[Guest]

Sounds good! Just one question----why would anyone with even 2 functional brain cells want Hilary to win?

Thats one more than you have lol

[Guest]

Thats one more than you have lol

Could be---one never knows, do one?

BTW, thank you for the nostalgia---I haven't heard a retort like yours since kindergarten

[Guest]

sheeple?

"Taking a bit of leeway with the truth"

Since you do not know how, or are to lazy to search on the internet, I will do it for you. Know what your commenting about before you do, it shows you are a buffoon.

Marco Rubio Suggests His Supreme Court Would Roll Back Marriage Equality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-meet-the-press-marriage_us_566d9098e4b0fccee16ee695)

You are still disregarding the original statement you(?) made. You used the word REPEAL. Once again, you take liberties with the truth. What good does Google do YOU if you have no reading comprehension? He did NOT use the term or suggest the usage of "REPEAL." Sorry, but don't get mad at me for correcting you SEVERAL times. It is you that is at fault with your interpretation of reality. Twisting something someone says is slander. I doubt you are blatant in your wish to pervert his words, but you should be careful when you attempt to paraphrase someone you don't like.

I would have no problem with a REPEAL, because I agree with his definition of marriage. You see, in many states the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. Rubio is saying that the constitution allows the individual states to make that law, not the federal government. I believe it is the tenth amendment? Part of the Bill or Rights, I think.

If you happen to find a quote saying he is going to REPEAL then I will stand corrected. It is not up to me to search for it, as I did not make that claim. So, have a great day.

[Guest]

You are still disregarding the original statement you(?) made. You used the word REPEAL. Once again, you take liberties with the truth. What good does Google do YOU if you have no reading comprehension? He did NOT use the term or suggest the usage of "REPEAL." Sorry, but don't get mad at me for correcting you SEVERAL times. It is you that is at fault with your interpretation of reality. Twisting something someone says is slander. I doubt you are blatant in your wish to pervert his words, but you should be careful when you attempt to paraphrase someone you don't like.

I would have no problem with a REPEAL, because I agree with his definition of marriage. You see, in many states the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. Rubio is saying that the constitution allows the individual states to make that law, not the federal government. I believe it is the tenth amendment? Part of the Bill or Rights, I think.

If you happen to find a quote saying he is going to REPEAL then I will stand corrected. It is not up to me to search for it, as I did not make that claim. So, have a great day.

I believe it is the tenth amendment? Part of the Bill or Rights, I think.

Please proof read your comment. Also "I think" , don't you know?

[Guest]

I believe it is the tenth amendment? Part of the Bill or Rights, I think.

Please proof read your comment. Also "I think" , don't you know?

Well, I'll tell you what. How about I change the subject or chose one of your adverbs to discuss, instead of addressing the subject. Are you that far defeated that you can't stay on topic? When ever someone answers your stupid questions or makes a comment about the subject, you seem to feel that you need to draw attention to you with a totally lame reply. A reply having nothing to do with politics. Either an attack on a poster or diverting to discussing punctuation. So my friend, get a life and go play with yourself, because you are not impressing anyone except yourself.

[Guest]

You liberals would be better off with Rubio as president than Trump. And you know that the Democrat establishment writing on the way says that they will not allow Hillary or Sanders to get the election. They will ultimately sacrifice the election to the GOP rather than have either of the two as president. SO, you might want to think on that. Why do you think Bloomie is getting ready to run as an Independent? To take away the wining vote of either Democrat candidate.





And why do you think Trump is threatening to run an independent campaign?

If Trump does run as an independent the R Party will become a minor Party

You might want to think on that.

Trump wins SC and he'll run the table

[Guest]

The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is legal in all the USA.

Rubio was saying today when (?) he is President, he will repeal that. Obviously, he does not realize the law of the land as pronounced by the Supreme Court cannot be repealled by the President or Congress.

I think the only way would be a Constitutional amendment that would take ratification by 3/4 of the states.

You would think that a presidential candidate would know that but maybe he is just counting on enough ignorant voters not to know what a president can and cannot do.

Yelp! Trying to get few liberal votes. The smart ones!


Isn't some members on the Supreme Court gay if so how could they rule without it being conflict of interest? Also Cala voted out gay marriage and district court judge if I remember correctly was known gay over ruled the voters. NO JUDGE gay or straight should be allowed to over rule voters on they're special interest. This is why term limits need to be on circuit, especially Supreme Court, and of course congress. No way to get rid of them even if they're 95. Don't say age discrimination cause it in other career jobs like airline pilots, military high year tenure ext..

[Guest]

Yelp! Trying to get few liberal votes. The smart ones!


Isn't some members on the Supreme Court gay if so how could they rule without it being conflict of interest? Also Cala voted out gay marriage and district court judge if I remember correctly was known gay over ruled the voters. NO JUDGE gay or straight should be allowed to over rule voters on they're special interest. This is why term limits need to be on circuit, especially Supreme Court, and of course congress. No way to get rid of them even if they're 95. Don't say age discrimination cause it in other career jobs like airline pilots, military high year tenure ext..







We already have term limits in Congress - their called elections.

[Guest]

Why does anyone want Gay Marriage to be repealed?

What harm has this done in the country? Many long term, 30+ years, couples are getting married. At this time in life its all about getting the estate in order.

The sky hasn't fallen.....

[Guest]

Yelp! Trying to get few liberal votes. The smart ones!


Isn't some members on the Supreme Court gay if so how could they rule without it being conflict of interest? Also Cala voted out gay marriage and district court judge if I remember correctly was known gay over ruled the voters. NO JUDGE gay or straight should be allowed to over rule voters on they're special interest. This is why term limits need to be on circuit, especially Supreme Court, and of course congress. No way to get rid of them even if they're 95. Don't say age discrimination cause it in other career jobs like airline pilots, military high year tenure ext..

So who on the court are gay? Rumors do NOT count!

[Guest]

Why does anyone want Gay Marriage to be repealed?

What harm has this done in the country? Many long term, 30+ years, couples are getting married. At this time in life its all about getting the estate in order.

The sky hasn't fallen.....

Nobody said anything about "repealing" gay marriage. Why do you keep perverting what someone says?

But, if you really want to know why it SHOULD be banned, since there is no federal law regarding marriage, maybe it's because the majority of Americans believe that marriage is religious, and the majority of Americans believe that a religious marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

Homosexuality is a deviant abnormal behavior that is TOLERATED, but not condoned. That is my opinion, which is shared by the majority. Deviant, but unharmful behavior should be kept in the bedroom where ALL sexual behavior should be kept. Not in parades in the street or on TV for the children to see.

[Guest]

BS thread kept alive by the master baiters!

[Guest]

So who on the court are gay? Rumors do NOT count!


I doubt they put in on they're resume or will Amit to it like others when applying for job.
They only come out of the closet when it's convenient to advance the cause or lawsuit. :popcorn:

[Guest]

No one has said why Gay Marriage should be repealed.... what harm has it caused? How does it affect YOUR everyday life?

This is just another example of the Christian right trying to impose their religions on the rest of us!!!!

[Guest]

Nobody said anything about "repealing" gay marriage. Why do you keep perverting what someone says?

But, if you really want to know why it SHOULD be banned, since there is no federal law regarding marriage, maybe it's because the majority of Americans believe that marriage is religious, and the majority of Americans believe that a religious marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

Homosexuality is a deviant abnormal behavior that is TOLERATED, but not condoned. That is my opinion, which is shared by the majority. Deviant, but unharmful behavior should be kept in the bedroom where ALL sexual behavior should be kept. Not in parades in the street or on TV for the children to see.

There is no federal law on marriage, perhaps true, but there is a Federal Constitution. And that document is controlling authority for the entire country as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Marriage is a legal merger of individuals into a state recognized by the government and given special consideration. It has nothing to do with religion unless the parties choose to have a religious element to the contract. While some may choose to have the contract witnessed in a religious environment, other choose to have a completely non-religious event for example being married by a judge or other civil authority. What the US Supreme Court said, very clearly, is that any two adults can enter into this contract without needing to be one female and one male. Equal protection requires it under the Constitution no matter what the majority of citizens want. This has been the role of the court and frankly the Constitution to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The majority did not want to have integration in the South, or in the north likely. The majority may well believe cops should be able to stop anyone and search anyone, because if you are not guilty you have nothing to hide. The Constitution says otherwise and the court's job is protect those rights guaranteed whether you or I agree.
No one can tell any religion that it needs to have anything to do with gay marriage. No priest or shaman or preacher can be forced to officiate over a gay marriage. But the law now is that the state may not prohibit gay persons from marriage. You see there is no such thing as "religious" marriage according to civil law. There is only marriage. If the Catholic church decides it will not call a straight couple "married" if the ceremony was done in a courthouse not by a cleric, that is fine with me. It was a marriage without the blessing of a priest. If the Catholic church does not want to call me married to my partner, that is fine with me. I don't need the approval of the Catholic church, or you, on my orientation or my marriage for it to be completely 100% legal in every state of the good old USA

Deviant? My behavior is not deviant. The Church of course defines deviant in lots of ways depending on your particular flavor of God. Oral Sex, deviant. Masturbation super deviant. Anything but Missionary position DEVIANT, as the lovely missionaries of the Christian faith told those sexed up natives to stop having it any other way or go to Hades. So are you deviant too?

[Guest]

There is no federal law on marriage, perhaps true, but there is a Federal Constitution. And that document is controlling authority for the entire country as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Marriage is a legal merger of individuals into a state recognized by the government and given special consideration. It has nothing to do with religion unless the parties choose to have a religious element to the contract. While some may choose to have the contract witnessed in a religious environment, other choose to have a completely non-religious event for example being married by a judge or other civil authority. What the US Supreme Court said, very clearly, is that any two adults can enter into this contract without needing to be one female and one male. Equal protection requires it under the Constitution no matter what the majority of citizens want. This has been the role of the court and frankly the Constitution to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The majority did not want to have integration in the South, or in the north likely. The majority may well believe cops should be able to stop anyone and search anyone, because if you are not guilty you have nothing to hide. The Constitution says otherwise and the court's job is protect those rights guaranteed whether you or I agree.
No one can tell any religion that it needs to have anything to do with gay marriage. No priest or shaman or preacher can be forced to officiate over a gay marriage. But the law now is that the state may not prohibit gay persons from marriage. You see there is no such thing as "religious" marriage according to civil law. There is only marriage. If the Catholic church decides it will not call a straight couple "married" if the ceremony was done in a courthouse not by a cleric, that is fine with me. It was a marriage without the blessing of a priest. If the Catholic church does not want to call me married to my partner, that is fine with me. I don't need the approval of the Catholic church, or you, on my orientation or my marriage for it to be completely 100% legal in every state of the good old USA

Deviant? My behavior is not deviant. The Church of course defines deviant in lots of ways depending on your particular flavor of God. Oral Sex, deviant. Masturbation super deviant. Anything but Missionary position DEVIANT, as the lovely missionaries of the Christian faith told those sexed up natives to stop having it any other way or go to Hades. So are you deviant too?

Well said!!!!

[Guest]

There is no federal law on marriage, perhaps true, but there is a Federal Constitution. And that document is controlling authority for the entire country as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Marriage is a legal merger of individuals into a state recognized by the government and given special consideration. It has nothing to do with religion unless the parties choose to have a religious element to the contract. While some may choose to have the contract witnessed in a religious environment, other choose to have a completely non-religious event for example being married by a judge or other civil authority. What the US Supreme Court said, very clearly, is that any two adults can enter into this contract without needing to be one female and one male. Equal protection requires it under the Constitution no matter what the majority of citizens want. This has been the role of the court and frankly the Constitution to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The majority did not want to have integration in the South, or in the north likely. The majority may well believe cops should be able to stop anyone and search anyone, because if you are not guilty you have nothing to hide. The Constitution says otherwise and the court's job is protect those rights guaranteed whether you or I agree.
No one can tell any religion that it needs to have anything to do with gay marriage. No priest or shaman or preacher can be forced to officiate over a gay marriage. But the law now is that the state may not prohibit gay persons from marriage. You see there is no such thing as "religious" marriage according to civil law. There is only marriage. If the Catholic church decides it will not call a straight couple "married" if the ceremony was done in a courthouse not by a cleric, that is fine with me. It was a marriage without the blessing of a priest. If the Catholic church does not want to call me married to my partner, that is fine with me. I don't need the approval of the Catholic church, or you, on my orientation or my marriage for it to be completely 100% legal in every state of the good old USA

Deviant? My behavior is not deviant. The Church of course defines deviant in lots of ways depending on your particular flavor of God. Oral Sex, deviant. Masturbation super deviant. Anything but Missionary position DEVIANT, as the lovely missionaries of the Christian faith told those sexed up natives to stop having it any other way or go to Hades. So are you deviant too?

Not to disparage you, but you do not live in reality.
You say that the gov can not force the church to marry gays? WRONG! They are threatening to take away tax exempt status if the church does not comply.

Yes Deviant behavior. Abnormal behavior. Just because your lifestyle is tolerated does not make it normal or condoned. Make up all the excuses you wish, but facts are facts. You can bring up all kinds of issues not related, kind of like blaming Bush for Obama's failures, but it doesn't change fact. You can attempt to excuse it, but that doesn't matter. Fact: homosexuality is deviant and abnormal behavior. Is it accepted? It is TOLERATED, not condoned. It does not have to be the Church that condemns it, science does also. But, I don't want to argue the issue of gay marriage. It is already considered legal, thanks to a group of judges, NOT the majority of American voters. I am not a bigot because I tolerate it. I don't agree with it, or condone it, but I tolerate it. As far as I am concerned, what two people do in privacy is their business.

[Guest]

Not to disparage you, but you do not live in reality.
You say that the gov can not force the church to marry gays? WRONG! They are threatening to take away tax exempt status if the church does not comply.

Yes Deviant behavior. Abnormal behavior. Just because your lifestyle is tolerated does not make it normal or condoned. Make up all the excuses you wish, but facts are facts. You can bring up all kinds of issues not related, kind of like blaming Bush for Obama's failures, but it doesn't change fact. You can attempt to excuse it, but that doesn't matter. Fact: homosexuality is deviant and abnormal behavior. Is it accepted? It is TOLERATED, not condoned. It does not have to be the Church that condemns it, science does also. But, I don't want to argue the issue of gay marriage. It is already considered legal, thanks to a group of judges, NOT the majority of American voters. I am not a bigot because I tolerate it. I don't agree with it, or condone it, but I tolerate it. As far as I am concerned, what two people do in privacy is their business.

Dear non bigoted guest
You are full of bluster and certainty. I request, no I insist that if you are going to continue to make statements of fact that you support them with evidence.
Start with something simple. Find me a single shred of evidence that anyone in any level of government has threatened the tax exempt status of any church over gay marriage. I do not accept a statement that someone on the right is afraid it might happen, but I want to see a real statement from a real personal doing exactly what you said has happened, because I know you are wrong.
Here is the link to Family research council which is a far right wing organization actively anti-gay marriage and even their website says you are WRONG
Family Research Council (http://www.frc.org/clergyprotected)
and here is the exact wording from the court on how it impacts churches

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.


Lastly as to your insistence that because you tolerate gay people you are not a bigot, I suppose that if you tolerate Negroes that does not make you a racist and if you "tolerate" Jews you are not an anti-Semite. And your risible assertion that "science" condemns homosexuality... You know nothing about science as science absolutely shows that homosexuality is a normal part of most mammalian species, and science never condemns anything, it presents evidence, posits theories, and seeks to understand the world in which we live, but it never condemns behavior.

[Guest]

Dear non bigoted guest
You are full of bluster and certainty. I request, no I insist that if you are going to continue to make statements of fact that you support them with evidence.
Start with something simple. Find me a single shred of evidence that anyone in any level of government has threatened the tax exempt status of any church over gay marriage. I do not accept a statement that someone on the right is afraid it might happen, but I want to see a real statement from a real personal doing exactly what you said has happened, because I know you are wrong.
Here is the link to Family research council which is a far right wing organization actively anti-gay marriage and even their website says you are WRONG
Family Research Council (http://www.frc.org/clergyprotected)
and here is the exact wording from the court on how it impacts churches

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.


Lastly as to your insistence that because you tolerate gay people you are not a bigot, I suppose that if you tolerate Negroes that does not make you a racist and if you "tolerate" Jews you are not an anti-Semite. And your risible assertion that "science" condemns homosexuality... You know nothing about science as science absolutely shows that homosexuality is a normal part of most mammalian species, and science never condemns anything, it presents evidence, posits theories, and seeks to understand the world in which we live, but it never condemns behavior.

Use the term "bigot" any way you wish. By definition, a bigot denotes intolerance. You don't have to agree with the definition, but that fact remains, just like you feel that the supreme court decision makes gay marriage legal. The court made it legal, not right, not normal, just legal. Saying someone is a racist because one believes that homosexuality is wrong, is ludicrous. And please don't try to use science as an argument to justify gay behavior. You will lose. You can use "love" as an argument, but not science.

Anti-Gay Marriage Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/roberts-warns-churches-could-lose-tax-exempt-status-for-opposing-gay-marriage/)

Churches could lose their tax-exempt status with the IRS if they refuse to recognize the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his dissenting opinion.

[Guest]

Anti-Gay Marriage Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/roberts-warns-churches-could-lose-tax-exempt-status-for-opposing-gay-marriage/)

Churches could lose their tax-exempt status with the IRS if they refuse to recognize the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his dissenting opinion.

Nice try but when you use the Daily Caller you might want to question whether they have accurately reported what they contend. The story you link does say churches may loose their tax exempt status but they lied about what Roberts wrote. If you care you can read his dissent here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf see page 28 of his writing
He said very clearly that non churches which are tax sheltered by being associated with a religion might be at risk. That means things like a college associated with a church which refuses marital housing to a legally married gay couple might place their institution at risk, a college which will not add a gay partner to its health insurance which is provides for straight couples might be at risk. But this absolutely does not apply to an actual church and Roberts makes that very very clear in his writing. The Daily Caller has mislead you. This exact situation happened to Bob Jones University when it had its tax exempt status threatened because it refused to accept dating or marriage of a white person to a non-white person.
If you really care you can read a summary of the SCOTUS decision in revoking Jones's tax exemption here on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States
or just read this very clear part proving my point that a university being at risk is not the same as a church

The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."[2]

See how you were mislead? By the way, Bob Jones University did not lift its ban on interracial dating until 2000 after GW Bush made a speech there and their policy became more widely known. No GOP Presidential candidate has blessed BJU with a visit until this year when both Cruz and Carson have made official visits, certainly within their right to go after that kind of Evangelical voter.

[Guest]

And your risible assertion that "science" condemns homosexuality... You know nothing about science as science absolutely shows that homosexuality is a normal part of most mammalian species,

Please cite references to that statement. That would be citations from National Geographic or Nature or the like, NOT GQ magazine.

[Guest]

Please cite references to that statement. That would be citations from National Geographic or Nature or the like, NOT GQ magazine.

:thumbup:

[Guest]

The Washington Post:

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns. “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”
===============
Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion: "The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

[Guest]

There is no federal law on marriage, perhaps true, but there is a Federal Constitution. And that document is controlling authority for the entire country as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Marriage is a legal merger of individuals into a state recognized by the government and given special consideration. It has nothing to do with religion unless the parties choose to have a religious element to the contract. While some may choose to have the contract witnessed in a religious environment, other choose to have a completely non-religious event for example being married by a judge or other civil authority. What the US Supreme Court said, very clearly, is that any two adults can enter into this contract without needing to be one female and one male. Equal protection requires it under the Constitution no matter what the majority of citizens want. This has been the role of the court and frankly the Constitution to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The majority did not want to have integration in the South, or in the north likely. The majority may well believe cops should be able to stop anyone and search anyone, because if you are not guilty you have nothing to hide. The Constitution says otherwise and the court's job is protect those rights guaranteed whether you or I agree.
No one can tell any religion that it needs to have anything to do with gay marriage. No priest or shaman or preacher can be forced to officiate over a gay marriage. But the law now is that the state may not prohibit gay persons from marriage. You see there is no such thing as "religious" marriage according to civil law. There is only marriage. If the Catholic church decides it will not call a straight couple "married" if the ceremony was done in a courthouse not by a cleric, that is fine with me. It was a marriage without the blessing of a priest. If the Catholic church does not want to call me married to my partner, that is fine with me. I don't need the approval of the Catholic church, or you, on my orientation or my marriage for it to be completely 100% legal in every state of the good old USA

Deviant? My behavior is not deviant. The Church of course defines deviant in lots of ways depending on your particular flavor of God. Oral Sex, deviant. Masturbation super deviant. Anything but Missionary position DEVIANT, as the lovely missionaries of the Christian faith told those sexed up natives to stop having it any other way or go to Hades. So are you deviant too?

There's this old joke of an Italian male and a Greek male arguing about whose country had made the greatest contributions to the known world in literature, architecture, etc when the Greek said well we invented sex and the Italian replied yes but we invented it with women.

You misspeak when you define same sex sex as not being deviant.
But that's not my objection. My objection is that militant homosexuals demanded the redefinition of marriage not for any civil right because their civil rights were never violated but rather to attempt to normalize a deviant act. and one way you normalize it is to remove gender and one way to legalize it was to redefine the definition of marriage But you can't fool mother nature

Another way to normalize it comes from Hollywood because if you display it enough you socialize it and once you socialize it you normalize it. Its like tell a lie long enough makes it the truth.

This same sex controversy has opened up a pandora's box where just about every deviant form of sexual activity will become an obsession with movie makers because they will do anything for a buck

Let me be clear I am no more pleased with Hollywood's overuse of gratuitous heterosexual sex. And further I do view the performance of oral sex as both deviant behavior as well as a real health hazards for participants

Our societies obsession with sex was bad enough but now the push by militant homosexuals agenda is destroying mind and soul especially for young people. Hedonism will continue to grow as we continue our slide toward total secularism. Welcome to the Rise And Fall Of The Great American Empire

I am sorry but America is getting uglier by the day

[Guest]

There's this old joke of an Italian male and a Greek male arguing about whose country had made the greatest contributions to the known world in literature, architecture, etc when the Greek said well we invented sex and the Italian replied yes but we invented it with women.

You misspeak when you define same sex sex as not being deviant.
But that's not my objection. My objection is that militant homosexuals demanded the redefinition of marriage not for any civil right because their civil rights were never violated but rather to attempt to normalize a deviant act. and one way you normalize it is to remove gender and one way to legalize it was to redefine the definition of marriage But you can't fool mother nature

Another way to normalize it comes from Hollywood because if you display it enough you socialize it and once you socialize it you normalize it. Its like tell a lie long enough makes it the truth.

This same sex controversy has opened up a pandora's box where just about every deviant form of sexual activity will become an obsession with movie makers because they will do anything for a buck

Let me be clear I am no more pleased with Hollywood's overuse of gratuitous heterosexual sex. And further I do view the performance of oral sex as both deviant behavior as well as a real health hazards for participants

Our societies obsession with sex was bad enough but now the push by militant homosexuals agenda is destroying mind and soul especially for young people. Hedonism will continue to grow as we continue our slide toward total secularism. Welcome to the Rise And Fall Of The Great American Empire

I am sorry but America is getting uglier by the day

:agree:

[Guest]

Since liberals now embrace socialism and communism, maybe conservatives should accept their inaccurate slurs of "bigot" thrown at us. Of course bigot denotes intolerance, and we do tolerate. We just don't condone. Condone means: to disregard or overlook, something illegal, and or objectionable.

I have heard several times on here and by liberal pundits that we should make America more like Denmark and the Danes. After a bit of research, I now know why liberals wish to be like the Danes. It seems that something like one out of five males have had sex with an animal. I wonder if the liberal Supreme Court would find it perfectly OK for that practice.

Denmark'''s Bestiality Problem: It'''s Legal - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/14/denmark-s-bestiality-problem-it-s-legal.html)

Animal brothels legal in Denmark | IceNews - Daily News (http://www.icenews.is/2008/05/20/animal-brothels-legal-in-denmark/#axzz40YLIzhS1)

Denmark moves to ban bestiality: Controversial right to have sex with animals will be outlawed | Weird News | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/denmark-moves-to-ban-bestiality-controversial-right-to-have-sex-with-animals-will-be-outlawed-9790829.html)

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1187484

I have heard several times on here and by liberal pundits that we should make America more like Denmark and the Danes. After a bit of research, I now know why liberals wish to be like the Danes. It seems that something like one out of five males have had sex with an animal. I wonder if the liberal Supreme Court would find it perfectly OK for that practice.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like West Virginia, doesn't it? I doubt if many of the hillbilly guys who like their sheep are Democrats. How about Ned Beatty's "pals" from "Deliverance"? Do you suppose they were Democrats? Looked liked they would be for Cruz!

[Guest]

Sounds like West Virginia, doesn't it? I doubt if many of the hillbilly guys who like their sheep are Democrats. How about Ned Beatty's "pals" from "Deliverance"? Do you suppose they were Democrats? Looked liked they would be for Cruz!

Yep, they were definitely Democrats. Almost all of Hollywood are liberals.

[Guest]

Please cite references to that statement. That would be citations from National Geographic or Nature or the like, NOT GQ magazine.

Really? You are unaware of any of the findings? You want National Geographic and accept it as definitive?

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)
The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.
There you go.
and the BBC
BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals? (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals)
That many humans are homosexual is well known but we also know the behaviour is extremely common across the animal kingdom, from insects to mammals
And medical news
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx)
One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.

And Yale University
Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? | Yale Scientific Magazine (http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/)
Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide

and praise the gay lord even Fox News has the information
Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/19/homosexuality-common-in-wild-scientists-say.html)
On this issue, Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species

Consider yourself informed, you may pass on this information to all your friends.

[Guest]

Yep, they were definitely Democrats. Almost all of Hollywood are liberals.

You obviously never saw Deliverance.

[Guest]

Really? You are unaware of any of the findings? You want National Geographic and accept it as definitive?

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)
There you go.
and the BBC
BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals? (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals)
And medical news
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx)
.

And Yale University
Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? | Yale Scientific Magazine (http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/)


and praise the gay lord even Fox News has the information
Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/19/homosexuality-common-in-wild-scientists-say.html)


Consider yourself informed, you may pass on this information to all your friends.

Thank you, obviously I have some research to do. Of course, if all these "scientists" turn out to be gay.........

[Guest]

Really? You are unaware of any of the findings? You want National Geographic and accept it as definitive?

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)
There you go.
and the BBC
BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals? (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals)
And medical news
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx)
.

And Yale University
Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? | Yale Scientific Magazine (http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/)


and praise the gay lord even Fox News has the information
Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/19/homosexuality-common-in-wild-scientists-say.html)


Consider yourself informed, you may pass on this information to all your friends.


IMO I don't consider humans to be animals. We have more brains and should know better. Just cause the dumb animals do it don't make make it natural in our blood line. We split from the animals long ago. IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. I take it they didn't find out WHY animal specie went homosexual? Another thing just cause somebody studies and writes they're opinion on subject don't make it the absolute truth.

[Guest]

IMO I don't consider humans to be animals. We have more brains and should know better. Just cause the dumb animals do it don't make make it natural in our blood line. We split from the animals long ago. IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. I take it they didn't find out WHY animal specie went homosexual? Another thing just cause somebody studies and writes they're (their) opinion on subject don't (doesn't) make it the absolute truth.

I give up. I state that homosexual activity is common in mammals

as science absolutely shows that homosexuality is a normal part of most mammalian species,

and get challenged to produce evidence of that, because some of you don't know how to use google..

Please cite references to that statement. That would be citations from National Geographic or Nature or the like, NOT GQ magazine


So I produce a list of several citations including National Geographic clearly supporting, not just supporting my statement but if you bother to read the links, proving my statement with well documented observations, factual observations of animal behavior in hundreds of species and you, the perhaps same person who can't use google now shows you don't understand how to read a report in a journal. Observations of animal behavior are not opinions. It is not an opinion that a panda eats bamboo or that a sandhill has a mating dance. It happens. These animals don't go homosexual, they have same sex coital behaviors.
At least from your phrase that we split from the animals a long time ago I can take comfort that you reject the know nothing young earth Christians who actually claim to believe the Genesis story and deny evolution. Perhaps there is hope you can learn about the present evidence why some of us more evolved hominids are innately straight, and others innately gay. Not my job, try Google

[Guest]

IMO I don't consider humans to be animals. We have more brains and should know better. Just cause the dumb animals do it don't make make it natural in our blood line. We split from the animals long ago. IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. I take it they didn't find out WHY animal specie went homosexual? Another thing just cause somebody studies and writes they're opinion on subject don't make it the absolute truth.

So you are a choicer....If humans have brains then we "should" be able to make a choice. Obviously you are NOT gay so at what age did you CHOOSE to be attracted to women, if you are a male. Did you ever feel those same feeling for a man? If you answered YES and then NO you didn't actually make a choice. Its the same for homosexual's they don't make a choice on who they are attracted to the only choice for them is to have a life or not.

As for this BS

IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. This might have been the thought years ago but not for quite some time. Homosexually was removed from the DSM in 1973.

[Guest]

IMO I don't consider humans to be animals. We have more brains and should know better. Just cause the dumb animals do it don't make make it natural in our blood line. We split from the animals long ago. IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. I take it they didn't find out WHY animal specie went homosexual? Another thing just cause somebody studies and writes they're opinion on subject don't make it the absolute truth.

NO, you didn't understand what they were getting at. They want us to compare them with animals. Their intent is to learn from the monkeys they believe they came from. Didn't you know, they believe that two men can procreate. It's science and they are sticking by it. :MOJE_whot:..:MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

This whole thread is moot. Who knows if Rubio will even get the Republican nomination? If so, it is unlikely he will win the presidential contest. The Supreme court ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right. End of story.

[Guest]

No matter what reference you wish to bring up, the fact remains that Homosexuality is abnormal behavior. Therefore, it fits the definition of deviant behavior. Just accept it. Even though some people tolerate, they still don't condone such behavior and avoid it as much as possible. No matter how much Follywood wishes to exploit it for monetary gain, it's still deviant, abnormal behavior. It's not just Christian, Bible thumpers that believe that. Everyone around you believes that. IF you paid attention, you would see that those around you are looking at you with pity and sympathy. That is because they are good, caring people that find what you do to be abnormal and deviant. It is mental illness, and all those that sympathize or pity are unintentionally fueling the mental illness, not helping in the cure. I am also guilty of that, in that I know gay folks and give them kindness and support. They believe it is because I support their lifestyle, when the reality is that I pity their mental illness. Basically, we are just humoring them when they should be corrected.

But, at least we now know why liberals are so hopped up on copying the Danes. I imagine that will be next in America, bestiality. It's common in Denmark. After all, if gays are using animals as examples of homosexuality, then I presume they feel that mating with them is also acceptable. According to the Supreme Court decision, that would also be acceptable.

[Guest]

This whole thread is moot. Who knows if Rubio will even get the Republican nomination? If so, it is unlikely he will win the presidential contest. The Supreme court ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right. End of story.

Rubio has the best chance of winning the general election than any of the other GOP candidates. Expand your knowledge and read a little bit of current news.
IMO, once the two top contenders get finished ripping themselves apart as well as their campaign, Rubio stands a chance to waltz in there and take the prize.

[Guest]

You obviously never saw Deliverance.

You obviously have no reading comprehension. Go back and read the reply again and see if you get it. I didn't type that fast, so you should be able to get it if you read it a couple of times.

[Guest]

So you are a choicer....If humans have brains then we "should" be able to make a choice. Obviously you are NOT gay so at what age did you CHOOSE to be attracted to women, if you are a male. Did you ever feel those same feeling for a man? If you answered YES and then NO you didn't actually make a choice. Its the same for homosexual's they don't make a choice on who they are attracted to the only choice for them is to have a life or not.

As for this BS

IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. This might have been the thought years ago but not for quite some time. Homosexually was removed from the DSM in 1973.

Homosexuality was stricken from the DSM as a political move only.

If one reads what is included as a disorder and compares any one of them with homosexuality it would give one pause to wonder why homosexuality was removed. For instance a foot fetish is consider a disorder. So if a man is attracted to a woman's foot (ankle included more likely) he has a disorder. But a guy attracted to another guy' ***** does not. Hmmmmmmm

And as to the argument that animals do it is not a validation for normalcy. Obvious animals are capable of deviant acts also.

I do not want to hurt anyone's feeling because I am not addressing the person but the act. My focus is not on what religion says but what biology tells us. Strictly speaking nature devised sex for procreation. Through natural procreation came natural selection.

Men/women alter the intent of nature through attitudes and science.
Do you suppose nature intended sex to be a SM exercise?

Many psychiatrist are concerned about what is happening in the transgender controversy. Parents are over reacting to this issue. There have always been tomboys but they grow up to be normal healthy woman. and some boys prefer to play with dolls but they too adjust. Psychiatrist have said that people who have transgendered live to regret it. they are confused.

I support and defend gay people's right to life liberty and the pursuit to happiness but I reject their desire to rewrite the laws of nature and attempt to turn this nation upside down Bill Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy should apply nationally . Now let me hope that the mistake the oligarchy called the Supreme court decision in Oberfefell can be repealed

[Guest]

Homosexuality was stricken from the DSM as a political move only.

If one reads what is included as a disorder and compares any one of them with homosexuality it would give one pause to wonder why homosexuality was removed. For instance a foot fetish is consider a disorder. So if a man is attracted to a woman's foot (ankle included more likely) he has a disorder. But a guy attracted to another guy' ***** does not. Hmmmmmmm

And as to the argument that animals do it is not a validation for normalcy. Obvious animals are capable of deviant acts also.

I do not want to hurt anyone's feeling because I am not addressing the person but the act. My focus is not on what religion says but what biology tells us. Strictly speaking nature devised sex for procreation. Through natural procreation came natural selection.

Men/women alter the intent of nature through attitudes and science.
Do you suppose nature intended sex to be a SM exercise?

Many psychiatrist are concerned about what is happening in the transgender controversy. Parents are over reacting to this issue. There have always been tomboys but they grow up to be normal healthy woman. and some boys prefer to play with dolls but they too adjust. Psychiatrist have said that people who have transgendered live to regret it. they are confused.

I support and defend gay people's right to life liberty and the pursuit to happiness but I reject their desire to rewrite the laws of nature and attempt to turn this nation upside down Bill Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy should apply nationally . Now let me hope that the mistake the oligarchy called the Supreme court decision in Oberfefell can be repealed

The ONLY reason this subject is even on any political agenda is to secure a voting bolck. NOTHING MORE.

There is nothing right about it at all. Someones choice? Fine. That is their business. They are a minority group that wants, with political and media support, to make it look and sound as if their presence is the norm....WHEN IT CLEARLY IS NOT...
I am sick and tired of hearing about it. I am more sick and tired of seeing it on every :censored: television and movie where they think they have to show two guys or gals kissing and groping.

They can do whatever they want just like they used to do. But stop the BS of making it be up front in every body's face day in and day out.

[Guest]

The ONLY reason this subject is even on any political agenda is to secure a voting bolck. NOTHING MORE.

There is nothing right about it at all. Someones choice? Fine. That is their business. They are a minority group that wants, with political and media support, to make it look and sound as if their presence is the norm....WHEN IT CLEARLY IS NOT...
I am sick and tired of hearing about it. I am more sick and tired of seeing it on every :censored: television and movie where they think they have to show two guys or gals kissing and groping.

They can do whatever they want just like they used to do. But stop the BS of making it be up front in every body's face day in and day out.

Totally agree.....:thumbup:

[Guest]

Homosexuality was stricken from the DSM as a political move only.

If one reads what is included as a disorder and compares any one of them with homosexuality it would give one pause to wonder why homosexuality was removed. For instance a foot fetish is consider a disorder. So if a man is attracted to a woman's foot (ankle included more likely) he has a disorder. But a guy attracted to another guy' ***** does not. Hmmmmmmm

And as to the argument that animals do it is not a validation for normalcy. Obvious animals are capable of deviant acts also.

I do not want to hurt anyone's feeling because I am not addressing the person but the act. My focus is not on what religion says but what biology tells us. Strictly speaking nature devised sex for procreation. Through natural procreation came natural selection.

Men/women alter the intent of nature through attitudes and science.
Do you suppose nature intended sex to be a SM exercise?

Many psychiatrist are concerned about what is happening in the transgender controversy. Parents are over reacting to this issue. There have always been tomboys but they grow up to be normal healthy woman. and some boys prefer to play with dolls but they too adjust. Psychiatrist have said that people who have transgendered live to regret it. they are confused.

I support and defend gay people's right to life liberty and the pursuit to happiness but I reject their desire to rewrite the laws of nature and attempt to turn this nation upside down Bill Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy should apply nationally . Now let me hope that the mistake the oligarchy called the Supreme court decision in Oberfefell can be repealed

It was removed..... But if it is true that as you say "Strictly speaking nature devised sex for procreation. " Then why are so many men in this community using Viagra to have sex? Seriously they are NOT having sex for procreation now are they.

[Guest]

It was removed..... But if it is true that as you say "Strictly speaking nature devised sex for procreation. " Then why are so many men in this community using Viagra to have sex? Seriously they are NOT having sex for procreation now are they.

What does that have to do with it? Are attempting to get back to the point where you can blame Bush again?

[Guest]

What does that have to do with it? Are attempting to get back to the point where you can blame Bush again?

The poster I was responding to claimed that sex was for procreation....if that were true then men would not be having sex with their wives who have gone through the change....NO PROCREATION.

Why do you bring up Bush? Don't think he is a part of this string.

Lastly what did Jesus say directly about Homosexuality?

[Guest]

Rubio said that it is a state's right to define marriage, not the federal gov. He did NOT say he would repeal it. He said he would not change the Constitution. He did not say he would repeal any law regarding same sex marriage. This is just a campaign of misinformation perpetrated by deviant liberals.

You do know there are deviant Republicans....The Log Cabin Republicans!

[Guest]

Nobody said anything about "repealing" gay marriage. Why do you keep perverting what someone says?

But, if you really want to know why it SHOULD be banned, since there is no federal law regarding marriage, maybe it's because the majority of Americans believe that marriage is religious, and the majority of Americans believe that a religious marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

Homosexuality is a deviant abnormal behavior that is TOLERATED, but not condoned. That is my opinion, which is shared by the majority. Deviant, but unharmful behavior should be kept in the bedroom where ALL sexual behavior should be kept. Not in parades in the street or on TV for the children to see.

Was someone having sex during a parade with children present?

[Guest]

The poster I was responding to claimed that sex was for procreation....if that were true then men would not be having sex with their wives who have gone through the change....NO PROCREATION.

Why do you bring up Bush? Don't think he is a part of this string.

Lastly what did Jesus say directly about Homosexuality?

And what does Jesus have to do with this conversation? Why don't you ask HIM what he thinks? Oh......I see....we don't want to go there, right?

[Guest]

Was someone having sex during a parade with children present?

I have no idea, did they? Since I have not attended them, perhaps you can answer that question. I have no idea why you ask, though. Perhaps, that is another confusion you are forced to contend with.

[Guest]

You do know there are deviant Republicans....The Log Cabin Republicans!

What's that got to do with the comment? Perhaps you should not be smoking wacky weed while operating a computer.

[Guest]

It was removed..... But if it is true that as you say "Strictly speaking nature devised sex for procreation. " Then why are so many men in this community using Viagra to have sex? Seriously they are NOT having sex for procreation now are they.

You are mixing nature's intent with man's/woman's desires; albeit nature made it pleasant to encourage participation. Again from a biological standpoint men and women fit nicely for the purpose of procreation as nature intended. And as nature intended eventually the old boy and girl's seed /eggs wear down and are unlikely to breed the best of a species and so well you know the rest of the story. Anything beyond that is made man.

Why are men using Viagra? Perhaps it is because they are afraid of growing old? Perhaps you should take a survey. I start by giving you my response. I don't take Viagra. Sex is still in my life but it is not a priority in my life . And quite frankly I believe this nation is too obsessed with sex. There has been only one woman in my life and my love for her has always centered on her heart and soul. Perhaps its why we remained together for so long?

[Guest]

You are mixing nature's intent with man's/woman's desires; albeit nature made it pleasant to encourage participation. Again from a biological standpoint men and women fit nicely for the purpose of procreation as nature intended. And as nature intended eventually the old boy and girl's seed /eggs wear down and are unlikely to breed the best of a species and so well you know the rest of the story. Anything beyond that is made man.

Why are men using Viagra? Perhaps it is because they are afraid of growing old? Perhaps you should take a survey. I start by giving you my response. I don't take Viagra. Sex is still in my life but it is not a priority in my life . And quite frankly I believe this nation is too obsessed with sex. There has been only one woman in my life and my love for her has always centered on her heart and soul. Perhaps its why we remained together for so long?

Amen brother! Well said. Sex is no one's business other than the participants. Unlike gays, most of us prefer privacy and have no need to flaunt it. But gays yearn acceptance of their deviation, and the majority of moral humans just can't give them that. They don't want us to tolerate them. They want us to condone and accept their abnormal behavior. I do sympathize with their mental issues, but if they don't seek treatment for it, there is nothing that can be done to remedy it.

[Guest]

What's that got to do with the comment? Perhaps you should not be smoking wacky weed while operating a computer.

Please try an keep up.....my comment was in response to this:

This is just a campaign of misinformation perpetrated by deviant liberals.

And while I may have a summer home in Colorado I have never smoked weed! Or ate it for that matter.

[Guest]

Please try an keep up.....my comment was in response to this:

This is just a campaign of misinformation perpetrated by deviant liberals.

And while I may have a summer home in Colorado I have never smoked weed! Or ate it for that matter.

Good for you.

[Guest]

Amen brother! Well said. Sex is no one's business other than the participants. Unlike gays, most of us prefer privacy and have no need to flaunt it. But gays yearn acceptance of their deviation, and the majority of moral humans just can't give them that. They don't want us to tolerate them. They want us to condone and accept their abnormal behavior. I do sympathize with their mental issues, but if they don't seek treatment for it, there is nothing that can be done to remedy it.

Sounds as though you should sign up as a guest speaker to present your viewpoints to The Villages Rainbow Club.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1187621]So you are a choicer....If humans have brains then we "should" be able to make a choice. Obviously you are NOT gay so at what age did you CHOOSE to be attracted to women, if you are a male. Did you ever feel those same feeling for a man? If you answered YES and then NO you didn't actually make a choice. Its the same for homosexual's they don't make a choice on who they are attracted to the only choice for them is to have a life or not.

As for this BS

IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. This might have been the thought "Yes some AH opinion" years ago but not for quite some time. Homosexually was removed from the DSM in 1973.[/QUOTE

And You have Your BS opinion. Nobody knows what goes on in insects or animals mind or how they're wired Period, any comparison to humans is as You say BS! lame, and agenda opinion! Fine keep your behavior private. "No one knows what going on behind closed doors" and it should stay that way. Private

[Guest]

If gays believe that homosexuality is caused by DNA then maybe there should be a prenatal test so that the mother, that has a choice over her own body, might be able to abort the abnormal child. After all, it is the woman's choice, right? I am sure that most liberals would jump at the chance to kill another baby, especially one that's flawed.

[Guest]

If gays believe that homosexuality is caused by DNA then maybe there should be a prenatal test so that the mother, that has a choice over her own body, might be able to abort the abnormal child. After all, it is the woman's choice, right? I am sure that most liberals would jump at the chance to kill another baby, especially one that's flawed.

Bait alert!!!

[Guest]

Bait alert!!!

Bothers you when someone else besides the usual libtards makes a comment that you don't like? Get over it. This whole thread is nothing but bait. So, if you don't want to read something you don't approve, go to a different forum. Otherwise, sit back and steam like a cow patty on a cool morning.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1187621]So you are a choicer....If humans have brains then we "should" be able to make a choice. Obviously you are NOT gay so at what age did you CHOOSE to be attracted to women, if you are a male. Did you ever feel those same feeling for a man? If you answered YES and then NO you didn't actually make a choice. Its the same for homosexual's they don't make a choice on who they are attracted to the only choice for them is to have a life or not.

As for this BS

IMO most homosexual intention was behavioral problems early in childhood life or lack of affection by the other gender I assuming small percentage hormones got screwed up in the womb, which could explain the homosexual animals. This might have been the thought "Yes some AH opinion" years ago but not for quite some time. Homosexually was removed from the DSM in 1973.[/QUOTE

And You have Your BS opinion. Nobody knows what goes on in insects or animals mind or how they're wired Period, any comparison to humans is as You say BS! lame, and agenda opinion! Fine keep your behavior private. "No one knows what going on behind closed doors" and it should stay that way. Private

Dear Guest: There you go again. So let me re-state that the diagnosis of homosexuality was removed from the DSM not for any medical study that refuted it as a mental disorder but was strictly a political decision. One mental disorder listed in the DSM again is " a foot fetish". So if a male's preoccupation with feet/ankle is a disorder how is it same gender attraction is not? By citing the DSM in my view you make my argument.

And again from a biological and anatomical perspective men and women are a perfect fit and serve to ensure homo sapiens do not become extinct. So by those terms heterosexuality is the norm. Conversely then homosexuality is abnormal. As to the gay population I can understand whether it be organic or environmental or behaviorial that homosexuals would believe their same sex attraction is normal.

Not to be flippant narcissistic people believe their grandiose boasts as being normal .

Again its the social upheaval that militants homosexuals are created that is predicated on a false assumption and on a civil rights that does not exist. The Supreme Court misspoke and had no legal basis for its Obergefell decision.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1188262]

Dear Guest: There you go again. So let me re-state that the diagnosis of homosexuality was removed from the DSM not for any medical study that refuted it as a mental disorder but was strictly a political decision. One mental disorder listed in the DSM again is " a foot fetish". So if a male's preoccupation with feet/ankle is a disorder how is it same gender attraction is not? By citing the DSM in my view you make my argument.

And again from a biological and anatomical perspective men and women are a perfect fit and serve to ensure homo sapiens do not become extinct. So by those terms heterosexuality is the norm. Conversely then homosexuality is abnormal. As to the gay population I can understand whether it be organic or environmental or behaviorial that homosexuals would believe their same sex attraction is normal.

Not to be flippant narcissistic people believe their grandiose boasts as being normal .

Again its the social upheaval that militants homosexuals are created that is predicated on a false assumption and on a civil rights that does not exist. The Supreme Court misspoke and had no legal basis for its Obergefell decision.

And fortunately the type of people who still believe this idiotic crap is in the minority and their time is running out!

The judgement will await you!

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1188262]

Dear Guest: There you go again. So let me re-state that the diagnosis of homosexuality was removed from the DSM not for any medical study that refuted it as a mental disorder but was strictly a political decision. One mental disorder listed in the DSM again is " a foot fetish". So if a male's preoccupation with feet/ankle is a disorder how is it same gender attraction is not? By citing the DSM in my view you make my argument.

And again from a biological and anatomical perspective men and women are a perfect fit and serve to ensure homo sapiens do not become extinct. So by those terms heterosexuality is the norm. Conversely then homosexuality is abnormal. As to the gay population I can understand whether it be organic or environmental or behaviorial that homosexuals would believe their same sex attraction is normal.

Not to be flippant narcissistic people believe their grandiose boasts as being normal .

Again its the social upheaval that militants homosexuals are created that is predicated on a false assumption and on a civil rights that does not exist. The Supreme Court misspoke and had no legal basis for its Obergefell decision.

Well put....:thumbup: