Originally Posted by Guest

Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

"A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed."

Key word "PRIVATE." Keep your abnormal, deviant nature PRIVATE. It's called decency.

Originally Posted by Guest

I doubt that his wife and he paraded it about in the streets though. Don't you think that your deviant nature would be tolerated a bit easier if the abnormal behavior wasn't shoved in everyone's faces. I preferred not to view the 50 Shades of Gray movie also, and it wasn't forced on me.

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.

You must be joking about 50 Shades of Grey.

You are now safely in the minority!

Originally Posted by Guest;1213***

"A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed."

Key word "PRIVATE." Keep your abnormal, deviant nature PRIVATE. It's called decency.

Once again an uninformed person.....

The men in this case were having private intimate conduct but then the police came.

Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence’s (D) apartment in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officers found Lawrence and Garner (D) engaged in a sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were charged and convicted under Texas law of “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).”

Wrong again....

After reading these posts it came to me.....

Sex on the Square:

Woman, 68, and younger lover, 49, caught having sex in Florida retirement community

Sex on the Utility box Morse Blvd and 466:

http://www.**************.com/villag...l-camino-real/

Now just who is in your face?

Get a room

Originally Posted by Guest

After reading these posts it came to me.....

Sex on the Square:

Woman, 68, and younger lover, 49, caught having sex in Florida retirement community

Sex on the Utility box Morse Blvd and 466:

http://www.**************.com/villag...l-camino-real/

Now just who is in your face?

Get a room

Link for the blacked out one:

Public Sex Again In The Villages | Trap Shooters Forum

Originally Posted by Guest

Issues can always be worked out by reasonable people!

Is it reasonable to force someone to do something they don't want/are uncomfortable doing? The gay people were the unreasonable ones. FORCING the bakers to do something they didn't want/felt comfortable doing. Maybe for religious reasons. It doesn't matter, YOUR rights END when it affects MY rights. An "open" sign doesn't/shouldn't mean you MUST do whatever a customer wants.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.

Originally Posted by Guest

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.

But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

Originally Posted by Guest

Is it reasonable to force someone to do something they don't want/are uncomfortable doing? The gay people were the unreasonable ones. FORCING the bakers to do something they didn't want/felt comfortable doing. Maybe for religious reasons. It doesn't matter, YOUR rights END when it affects MY rights. An "open" sign doesn't/shouldn't mean you MUST do whatever a customer wants.



I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.



But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

It appears I hit a nerve....But you are swinging at multiple targets.

I am the one that called that called the photographer and asked if he had any issues before I hired him. So on that point you are very wrong.

On the rest there is no reason to continue with this as you can no longer be civil.

Originally Posted by Guest

After reading these posts it came to me.....

Sex on the Square:

Woman, 68, and younger lover, 49, caught having sex in Florida retirement community

Sex on the Utility box Morse Blvd and 466:

http://www.**************.com/villag...l-camino-real/

Now just who is in your face?

Get a room

Yes, and that couple was charged with a crime. What are you attempting to say? By the looks of your post, you seem to be a troubled person. Perhaps you should seek some professional help.

Not related to the subject, but considering that we have an over hundred thousand resident community and the squares are open to the public, we have little crime. When you consider how close we are to Orlando, that's pretty nice.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is the definition of a nuclear family:

nu·cle·ar fam·i·ly
noun
a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.

You have the right to freedom of religion and we have the right to freedom from YOUR religion. The Constitution also says the will be NO establishment of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where does it say that there will be "no establishment of religion?" The way I read it, it means there will be NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED religion, such as they had in Britain. The queen is the head of their religion. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits religion. As a matter of fact it says congress cannot "prohibit" religious practice. I believe that a good lawyer could present case for more religious liberty based on the First Amendment.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is the definition of a nuclear family:

nu·cle·ar fam·i·ly
noun
a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.

You have the right to freedom of religion and we have the right to freedom from YOUR religion. The Constitution also says the will be NO establishment of religion.

Dear Guest:

Poster in post#99 has clearly stated the religious aspect of religious freedoms.

The LGBT community eschews religion in favor of government because they know government as a secular society will ignore the morality issue, except of course if that country happens to me a theocracy

To wit this government is making criminals of people who choose to follow their faith. And there within lies the dilemma . On the one hand a gay can go to many bakeries for a wedding cake but uses the government to force a religious person at this one bakery into submission or jail. In a theocracy gay people are punished for their belief. Do you see the hypocrisy of the American gay community activists ?

You intentionally misdirect the definition of a nuclear family. A nuclear family has always been a father (male) a mother (female) and off spring. Again we find the abnormal defining normal

Your definition of nuclear is very confusing to children and it may take a generation or two but the ill effects of such arrangements will surface.

In fact the consequences of the guidance offered by Dr, Spock surfaced not long ago creating trigger warnings, micro- agressions and a demand for save spaces .

The optics alone of this entire gay issue are testimony to nature intentions

Let me be clear I do not care nor do I judge what people do in their private lives. However gay activists are trying to turn this world upside down so that it fits their life style . they are using the courts to drive people into submission and subordination and they eschew religion because they know religion conflicts with their life style. Ergo the assault on religious freedoms and the majority of people's rights . Homosexuality is not the issue for most Americans its the heavy hand of government oppression forcing their secular beliefs onto citizens . Its totalitarian in nature.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, and that couple was charged with a crime. What are you attempting to say? By the looks of your post, you seem to be a troubled person. Perhaps you should seek some professional help.

Not related to the subject, but considering that we have an over hundred thousand resident community and the squares are open to the public, we have little crime. When you consider how close we are to Orlando, that's pretty nice.

We have little crime because of our demographics, affluent white people. That is the ONLY reason. As we "diversify" the crime will increase, it ALWAYS does.

Originally Posted by Guest

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where does it say that there will be "no establishment of religion?" The way I read it, it means there will be NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED religion, such as they had in Britain. The queen is the head of their religion. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits religion. As a matter of fact it says congress cannot "prohibit" religious practice. I believe that a good lawyer could present case for more religious liberty based on the First Amendment.

Encourage a bunch of idiots to believe in an invisible man in space who controls everything? Why?

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest:

Poster in post#99 has clearly stated the religious aspect of religious freedoms.

The LGBT community eschews religion in favor of government because they know government as a secular society will ignore the morality issue, except of course if that country happens to me a theocracy

To wit this government is making criminals of people who choose to follow their faith. And there within lies the dilemma . On the one hand a gay can go to many bakeries for a wedding cake but uses the government to force a religious person at this one bakery into submission or jail. In a theocracy gay people are punished for their belief. Do you see the hypocrisy of the American gay community activists ?

You intentionally misdirect the definition of a nuclear family. A nuclear family has always been a father (male) a mother (female) and off spring. Again we find the abnormal defining normal

Your definition of nuclear is very confusing to children and it may take a generation or two but the ill effects of such arrangements will surface.

In fact the consequences of the guidance offered by Dr, Spock surfaced not long ago creating trigger warnings, micro- agressions and a demand for save spaces .

The optics alone of this entire gay issue are testimony to nature intentions

Let me be clear I do not care nor do I judge what people do in their private lives. However gay activists are trying to turn this world upside down so that it fits their life style . they are using the courts to drive people into submission and subordination and they eschew religion because they know religion conflicts with their life style. Ergo the assault on religious freedoms and the majority of people's rights . Homosexuality is not the issue for most Americans its the heavy hand of government oppression forcing their secular beliefs onto citizens . Its totalitarian in nature.

Personal Best Regards:

They lie, and then won't talk about it because WE'RE being "uncivil".

Originally Posted by Guest

We have little crime because of our demographics, affluent white people. That is the ONLY reason. As we "diversify" the crime will increase, it ALWAYS does.



Encourage a bunch of idiots to believe in an invisible man in space who controls everything? Why?



They lie, and then won't talk about it because WE'RE being "uncivil".

Who said that we believe in a "man in space"??? I won't go into religion or faith with you, because it is obvious that you are a very disturbed and angry person. Although, if I had no faith I guess I would be angry and disturbed also.

Originally Posted by Guest

Who said that we believe in a "man in space"??? I won't go into religion or faith with you, because it is obvious that you are a very disturbed and angry person. Although, if I had no faith I guess I would be angry and disturbed also.

Yes, awareness is a curse. Oh to be naive living in an ignorant bliss...I envy you sometimes. But that isn't going to get me to believe in your "God" whom IF real and as omnificent as you say/think he/it is, is doing a really poor job of running things. I'd say we need new management.

When you're ready to talk, I'll be here to tear you apart. I'm not angry, just occasionally frustrated with the ignorant rabble who believe the lies and deception. It's tough to shake when they start the brainwashing when you're a helpless infant.

I wish you enlightenment...if you can handle it...otherwise, remain where you are, some people need an authority figure to follow. I'd rather be that figure than follow one...but that's just me.

Enjoy your day

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest:

Poster in post#99 has clearly stated the religious aspect of religious freedoms.

The LGBT community eschews religion in favor of government because they know government as a secular society will ignore the morality issue, except of course if that country happens to me a theocracy

To wit this government is making criminals of people who choose to follow their faith. And there within lies the dilemma . On the one hand a gay can go to many bakeries for a wedding cake but uses the government to force a religious person at this one bakery into submission or jail. In a theocracy gay people are punished for their belief. Do you see the hypocrisy of the American gay community activists ?

You intentionally misdirect the definition of a nuclear family. A nuclear family has always been a father (male) a mother (female) and off spring. Again we find the abnormal defining normal

Your definition of nuclear is very confusing to children and it may take a generation or two but the ill effects of such arrangements will surface.

In fact the consequences of the guidance offered by Dr, Spock surfaced not long ago creating trigger warnings, micro- agressions and a demand for save spaces .

The optics alone of this entire gay issue are testimony to nature intentions

Let me be clear I do not care nor do I judge what people do in their private lives. However gay activists are trying to turn this world upside down so that it fits their life style . they are using the courts to drive people into submission and subordination and they eschew religion because they know religion conflicts with their life style. Ergo the assault on religious freedoms and the majority of people's rights . Homosexuality is not the issue for most Americans its the heavy hand of government oppression forcing their secular beliefs onto citizens . Its totalitarian in nature.

Personal Best Regards:

Ah yes, Sunday morning and Mr. High and Mighty is up to his moral rantings once more. All we can say is .

Originally Posted by Guest

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where does it say that there will be "no establishment of religion?" The way I read it, it means there will be NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED religion, such as they had in Britain. The queen is the head of their religion. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits religion. As a matter of fact it says congress cannot "prohibit" religious practice. I believe that a good lawyer could present case for more religious liberty based on the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw