|
Quote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_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_Jo..._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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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." |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
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 Animal brothels legal in Denmark | IceNews - Daily News Denmark moves to ban bestiality: Controversial right to have sex with animals will be outlawed | Weird News | News | The Independent |
[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! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate Quote:
and the BBC BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals? Quote:
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Quote:
And Yale University Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? | Yale Scientific Magazine Quote:
Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say | Fox News Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why do you bring up Bush? Don't think he is a part of this string. Lastly what did Jesus say directly about Homosexuality? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[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 |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.