Gays

[indago]

Journalist Tresa Baldas wrote for The Detroit Free Press 6 November 2014:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, issued its decision three months after hearing same-sex marriage cases from all four states. In each of those states, federal judges had struck down same-sex marriage bans on constitutional grounds.


In a 2-1 vote, the Sixth Circuit overturned those decisions, concluding the definition of marriage should be left to the voters -- not judges -- and that voters should be allowed to decide whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.


"Not one of the plaintiffs' theories ... makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters," the court wrote.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/06/th-circuit-sex-marriage-ruling/18610117/)

[PixieStix]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47511-Court-Reverses-Rulings-In-Four-States-Upholds-Marriage-Bans

[stevecanuck]

The main problem with democracy is that it allows for tyranny by majority.

[indago]

Journalist John Hanna wrote for The Associated Press 31 October 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas attorney general's office told a federal judge Friday that he should not consider blocking the state from enforcing its gay-marriage ban until the state Supreme Court weighs in, while the American Civil Liberties Union argued same-sex couples suffer legal harm if the judge delays a decision. The arguments came in a hearing on the ACLU's request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Kansas' gay-marriage ban while U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree considers the group's lawsuit on behalf of two lesbian couples.


...Kansas law has never recognized same-sex marriages, and voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution in 2005 to add a gay-marriage ban.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KANSAS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-31-20-41-48)


Some may wonder why the ACLU fights so hard for "Gay Rights", and the "Illegal Alien Causes".


From the ACLU WebSite:
----------------------------------------------
Anthony D. Romero — Executive Director


Romero is the ACLU's sixth executive director, and the first Latino and openly gay man to serve in that capacity.
----------------------------------------------


ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/leader/anthony-d-romero)

[indago]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47511-Court-Reverses-Rulings-In-Four-States-Upholds-Marriage-Bans

Hmmm! I searched, and didn't see this one. Possibly got posted while I was formatting.

[fj1200]

Journalist Tresa Baldas wrote for The Detroit Free Press 6 November 2014:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a 2-1 vote, the Sixth Circuit overturned those decisions, concluding the definition of marriage should be left to the voters -- not judges -- and that voters should be allowed to decide whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/06/th-circuit-sex-marriage-ruling/18610117/)

That won't last long IMO.


The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the issue of gay marriage. Now that there's a split in the federal appeals courts on the issue -- the gay-marriage movement has won 30-plus cases in the last year -- the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue, she said.
"We feel the Supreme Court was waiting for this," Nessell said. "We're looking forward to this issue being resolved once and for all for in this country, and I have every confidence that by the end of June 2015, there will be marriage equality in all 50 states."

[indago]

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple living in Michigan, bring their case under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is nothing equal about two gays and the traditional man-woman marriage. Two women do not equal one man and one woman.




From Fox News 7 January 2011:
---------------------------------------------------------------
'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications — The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says. “The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. "They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’"


“Even though my partner was their legal mother, had adopted them after I gave birth to them, she still had to put her name in the father field, and that is both discriminatory and makes us feel like second-class citizens,” she said.
---------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/#ixzz2XTwHphxx)


Gays seem to be suffering from an identity crisis: they actually believe that a woman is a husband. Continuing on from their victories in the courtrooms on the gay marriage issue, they will next be petitioning for removal of "HUSBAND" and "WIFE" from our documents. Then, petition for removal of FATHER'S DAY and MOTHER'S DAY from the calendars so that they won't feel uncomfortable when the time arrives.

[fj1200]

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple living in Michigan, bring their case under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is nothing equal about two gays and the traditional man-woman marriage. Two women do not equal one man and one woman.

Incorrect. In a majority of the states right now they can marry, which makes equal. Besides SCOTUS already laid the groundwork as Equal Protection applying.

[indago]

Andrea Peyser wrote for The New York Post 10 November 2014:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes. ...The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.


...“We’ve gone from tolerance to compulsion,’’ the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor, told me. ...“I think there is an effort under way to change the social order,’’ said Trainor. “One way is by redefining marriage.’’
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/)






This is what happens when you give those faggots an inch: they want it all


Chances are, the faggots really don't care about those people or their farm: they just want to insinuate their lifestyle into every nook and cranny they can find.

[indago]

From The Associated Press 9 November 2014:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A retired Mennonite pastor from Pennsylvania who lost his credentials after officiating at his gay son's wedding says he hopes the church will someday be more accepting of gays and lesbians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MENNONITE_PASTOR_GAY_WEDDING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-09-14-12-35)


And why should they? They're just not into supporting the proliferation of faggotry.

[Drummond]

Incorrect. In a majority of the states right now they can marry, which makes equal. Besides SCOTUS already laid the groundwork as Equal Protection applying.

H'm. I can't imagine any Leftie not being happy with such a statement.

It all makes for a highly pessimistic worldview. All this chip-chip-chipping away of Christian values ... by what means, short of full-blooded Conservatism coming to the fore, will this process be stopped ?

I daresay that one day, some Leftie or other will proclaim that acceptance of devil-worshipping is 'politically correct', since one mustn't be discriminatory !!!!

[fj1200]

... Leftie ... Leftie ...

Hmm, I can't imagine a hypocritical idiot would be able to discuss the actual topic... without trolling of course. :dunno: Thanks for confirming.

Not that the actual topic is anything more than hating gays.

[hjmick]

Homosexuality... same sex marriage... equal protection under the law for gays... gay, gay, gay...


Of all that is wrong in this world, in this country, the gays must, by far, be the most pressing issue... :rolleyes:


Why, they must be the cause of all that is wrong...



[end sarcasm]

[fj1200]

Damn lefties.

Theodore Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson)


Olson was nominated for the office of Solicitor General by President Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) on February 14, 2001, was confirmed by the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) on May 24, 2001, and took office on June 11, 2001. In July 2004, Olson retired as Solicitor General and returned to private practice at the Washington office of Gibson Dunn....
Olson, over time, came to believe that there is a constitutional right for same-sex marriage.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson#cite_note-conservativecase-6) In 2009 he joined with David Boies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies), his opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, to bring a federal lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger), challenging Proposition 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)), a California state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson#cite_note-7) His work on the lawsuit earned him a place among the Time 100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_100)'s greatest thinkers.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson#cite_note-8) In 2011 Olson and David Boies were awarded the ABA Medal, the highest award of the American Bar Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson#cite_note-9)

Dick Cheney (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/17/dick-cheney-lobbying-for-gay-marriage.html)

Dick Cheney, the former U.S. vice president known for his hard right stance on almost all matters political, is taking a stand in Maryland for gay marriage. Cheney, whose daughter is openly gay, has been lobbying Maryland lawmakers as they debate whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Cheney believes states should legalize gay marriage individually.

[Perianne]

I don't like gays pushing their sexuality. I have worked with several and none that I worked with actually do that, but I know they do it at times with gay marches and the like.

[Drummond]

Damn lefties.

Theodore Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson)



Dick Cheney (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/17/dick-cheney-lobbying-for-gay-marriage.html)

... and does your post constitute an attack on senior Conservative figures, FJ ? For a hoped-for effect ?

Tut tut.

[fj1200]

... and does your post constitute an attack on senior Conservative figures, FJ ? For a hoped-for effect ?

Tut tut.

It's unbelievable how much you suck at this. Why would I "attack" two conservatives that I agree with you idiot? I was just queuing them up so you could send them an e-mail to help them repent in their leftie ways.

[indago]

H'm. I can't imagine any Leftie not being happy with such a statement.

It all makes for a highly pessimistic worldview. All this chip-chip-chipping away of Christian values ... by what means, short of full-blooded Conservatism coming to the fore, will this process be stopped ?

I daresay that one day, some Leftie or other will proclaim that acceptance of devil-worshipping is 'politically correct', since one mustn't be discriminatory !!!!

Faggotry today, Pederasty tomorrow. Those who support the proliferation of Faggotry might as well join up and get in on the action:

JOIN (http://nambla.org/join.html)

[fj1200]

Faggotry today, Pederasty tomorrow. Those who support the proliferation of Faggotry might as well join up and get in on the action:

You're angry.

[Jeff]

You're angry.

First off that was funny fj :laugh: but when I clicked on the link and seen this I became one angry Mfer as well http://nambla.org/newlogo1.jpg



Our membership is open to all individuals sympathetic to man/boy love in particular and sexual freedom in general.

[Drummond]

Hmm, I can't imagine a hypocritical idiot would be able to discuss the actual topic... without trolling of course. :dunno: Thanks for confirming.

Not that the actual topic is anything more than hating gays.

Are you intent upon yet another thread hijack ?

I KNOW you have your very strong need to attack Conservatives at every turn. But why must you infect every thread with it ?

If you want to take a pro-gay stance, in line with your, ahem, supposedly NON-Leftie beliefs (!), why not just be candidly honest about it, and just debate your corner accordingly ?

[Drummond]

First off that was funny fj :laugh: but when I clicked on the link and seen this I became one angry Mfer as well http://nambla.org/newlogo1.jpg



Our membership is open to all individuals sympathetic to man/boy love in particular and sexual freedom in general.

And who could blame you ?

I think my earlier post about the chip-chip-chipping away of standards says it all. The Left will not only tolerate everything ... but INSIST that others do, too.

[Drummond]

It's unbelievable how much you suck at this. Why would I "attack" two conservatives that I agree with you idiot? I was just queuing them up so you could send them an e-mail to help them repent in their leftie ways.

-- Why would you attack any Conservatives, at all ?

But you do. DAILY.

Never mind, though. Try just sticking to the argument which you're itching to make. Candidly. Transparently.

Go for it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

First off that was funny fj :laugh: but when I clicked on the link and seen this I became one angry Mfer as well http://nambla.org/newlogo1.jpg



Our membership is open to all individuals sympathetic to man/boy love in particular and sexual freedom in general.

Our fj seems open to champion any such cause if it promotes extreme and fanatical TOLERANCE! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Methinks he just loves to be able to sit safely at home and pull the tiger's tail..

Surely he is not the muslim/terrorist, black'gangbanging-freeloading , dem/lib, gay/pervert loving "character" he so often presents here, are you , fj?-;)--Tyr

[Drummond]

Our fj seems open to champion any such cause if it promotes extreme and fanatical TOLERANCE! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Methinks he just loves to be able to sit safely at home and pull the tiger's tail..

Surely he is not the muslim/terrorist, black'gangbanging-freeloading , dem/lib, gay/pervert loving "character" he so often presents here, are you , fj?-;)--Tyr:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh::la ugh::rolleyes::clap::clap:

[aboutime]

NAMBLA....Sponsored by, and authorized by the makers of http://icansayit.com/images/PREP-H.GIF

[Drummond]

NAMBLA....Sponsored by, and authorized by the makers of http://icansayit.com/images/PREP-H.GIF:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::clap::clap:

[indago]

NAMBLA....Sponsored by, and authorized by the makers of http://icansayit.com/images/PREP-H.GIF

Like the old Alka-Seltzer commercial:

RELIEF IS JUST... A SWALLOW AWAY

[fj1200]

First off that was funny fj :laugh: but when I clicked on the link and seen this I became one angry Mfer as well

The problem is that you must accept his premise to be angry like him. nambla is disgusting enough on its own but tying the to two together is intellectually dishonest.

[fj1200]

Are you intent upon yet another thread hijack ?

I KNOW you have your very strong need to attack Conservatives at every turn. But why must you infect every thread with it ?

If you want to take a pro-gay stance, in line with your, ahem, supposedly NON-Leftie beliefs (!), why not just be candidly honest about it, and just debate your corner accordingly ?

Apparently your definition of "hijack" is to show you to be an uninformed idiot. I guess I hijacked the thread didn't I? ;)

:laugh: I'm not being honest you Big Government hack. :laugh:


-- Why would you attack any Conservatives, at all ?

But you do. DAILY.

Never mind, though. Try just sticking to the argument which you're itching to make. Candidly. Transparently.

Go for it.

My goodness you are one stupid idiot. Now it's my fault that you just called Ted Olson and Dick Cheney lefties? :dunno: I'm now convinced you're the stupidest member here.

[fj1200]

Our fj seems open to champion any such cause if it promotes extreme and fanatical TOLERANCE! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Methinks he just loves to be able to sit safely at home and pull the tiger's tail..

Surely he is not the muslim/terrorist, black'gangbanging-freeloading , dem/lib, gay/pervert loving "character" he so often presents here, are you , fj?-;)--Tyr

There's no tiger here, only mindless drones. ;) Besides the only cause I've championed is Constitutional liberty. It's a shame some "conservatives" here are more than willing to use the power of government to suppress the liberties of others.

But at least I'm not a homophobic racist like you. :)

[aboutime]

Like the old Alka-Seltzer commercial:

RELIEF IS JUST... A SWALLOW AWAY



indago. It get's better. At least NAMBLA has good dental practices too! http://icansayit.com/images/preptooth.jpg

[indago]

Michael Brown wrote for The Christian Post 30 September 2014:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, for every well-known ex-ex-gay, there are 10 or 100 or 1,000 unknown ex-gays, meaning people who formerly lived as homosexuals but no longer do. Only God knows their numbers, but I run into them all the time, often smiling broadly as they share their stories with me after hearing me speak at a meeting.


These people are, by and large, not involved with ex-gay ministries and have nothing to prove by their stories and nothing to gain financially. They just want me to know about the new life they have experienced in Jesus, and quite a few are now happily married with children.


...A former lesbian wrote to me, "I experienced God's love in a supernatural way after I chose to obey Him and deny my same-sex attractions. Those feelings have since disappeared gradually as my attention shifted from self-love to living for Jesus."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-about-ex-gays-127284/)


Just look at the joy in this young woman's heart realizing that she wasn't born gay...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SVqkIst2u4

[indago]

Journalist Anemona Hartocollis wrote for The New York Times 10 December 2014:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Albertorio felt like a man trapped in a woman’s body. After serving in the Air Force, he began taking hormones, which deepened his voice and made his physique more masculine. He changed his passport to reflect that he was male, and last year he decided to have a mastectomy, known as top surgery. But his insurance company told him the operation was cosmetic and refused to cover it, he said Wednesday. Now Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is warning insurance companies that they will no longer be allowed to deny gender reassignment surgery or other treatment to change a person’s gender, like hormone therapy, if a doctor has deemed that treatment medically necessary.


...The rule makes New York the ninth state to require the coverage, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group, said on Wednesday. The others are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, according to the group. Washington, D.C., also mandates it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/nyregion/in-new-york-insurance-must-cover-sex-changes-cuomo-says.html?ref=todayspaper)


So now all the gays who want to change their identity can do so at the insureds expense, therefore increasing the premium costs. That means that we get to subsidize the gay lifestyle in America whether we like it or not.

[indago]

Reported By The Associated Press 16 December 2014:
----------------------------------------------------------------
A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned a ruling ordering state prison officials to provide taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery for an inmate convicted of murder. Michelle Kosilek, born Robert Kosilek, is serving a life sentence for killing her spouse, Cheryl Kosilek, in 1990. Ms. Kosilek has waged a long legal battle for the surgery she says is necessary to relieve the mental anguish caused by gender-identity disorder.


...In a 3-to-2 ruling Tuesday, the full First Circuit found that Ms. Kosilek failed to demonstrate that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by not providing the surgery.
----------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us/massachusetts-sex-change-surgery-denied-to-inmate-.html?ref=todayspaper)


This nutcase should seek out psychiatric help in explaining just what it is.

[indago]

From The Associated Press 19 December 2014:
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Chinese psychological clinic was ordered Friday to pay compensation to a gay man who sued it for administering electric shocks intended to make him heterosexual, in what is believed to be China's first case involving so-called conversion therapy.
----------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_GAY_THERAPY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-19-04-41-36)


They didn't have the voltage for the electric shocks high enough...

[fj1200]

^You sure do spend a lot of time thinking about the gays.

[indago]

^You sure do spend a lot of time thinking about the gays.

They're in the news, or haven't you heard...

[fj1200]

They're in the news, or haven't you heard...

There are many things in the news that don't necessitate a thread or post unless you spend a lot of time thinking about them. :)

[indago]

There are many things in the news that don't necessitate a thread or post unless you spend a lot of time thinking about them. :)

Police brutality is in the news too, and I post about that. I post about taxes that are in the news too. I think about it when I am posting about it.

You're not coming on to me here, are you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There are many things in the news that don't necessitate a thread or post unless you spend a lot of time thinking about them. :)

Exactly why does it bother you?
If it does then don't read the thread! Don't reply , don't even glance at it.
Is that too hard or are you keen on defending yet another liberal specially protected group of damn perverts?
Then you wonder why so many question your true political stand..
Second and third hand defense of muslims, liberals, gays, Obama and others are why many question where
you truly stand.
And stop showing your massive bias by calling my friend Drummond an "idiot"..
He is a very intelligent guy. I do not recall either he or I ever calling you stupid!
Seems he and I give you far more respect than you care to show in return...
If you'd like that civility and manners to continue try some reciprocation of the politeness now shown you.
A friendly suggestion only. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There's no tiger here, only mindless drones. ;) Besides the only cause I've championed is Constitutional liberty. It's a shame some "conservatives" here are more than willing to use the power of government to suppress the liberties of others.

But at least I'm not a homophobic racist like you. :)
I've been called far worse by very much better people Hoss.
I wear that erroneous accusation with pride and knowing my principled stand irks you and your very liberal tendencies. .:laugh:-Tyr

[tailfins]

There's no tiger here, only mindless drones. ;) Besides the only cause I've championed is Constitutional liberty. It's a shame some "conservatives" here are more than willing to use the power of government to suppress the liberties of others.

But at least I'm not a homophobic racist like you. :)

The REAL bigots are the homosexuals. Their anti-Christian bigotry is breathtaking. A weekend in Provincetown, Mass. provides a TRUTHFUL picture of the homosexual community. Professor Tailfins is giving a homework assignment of spending a weekend in Provincetown, Mass. as a prerequisite to voice a QUALIFIED opinion on the homosexual community.

[fj1200]

Police brutality is in the news too, and I post about that. I post about taxes that are in the news too. I think about it when I am posting about it.

You're not coming on to me here, are you?

Now that I think about the overall attractiveness of the grossly unintelligent? No, not really. And it's quite believable that you aren't thinking about the gays more than the average citizen. :eek:


I've been called far worse by very much better people Hoss.
I wear that erroneous accusation with pride and knowing my principled stand irks you and your very liberal tendencies. .:laugh:-Tyr

I don't toss out accusations that I can't prove unlike the knuckleheads who think anyone who doesn't line up with all of their idiotic stances is "liberal."


The REAL bigots are the homosexuals. Their anti-Christian bigotry is breathtaking. A weekend in Provincetown, Mass. provides a TRUTHFUL picture of the homosexual community. Professor Tailfins is giving a homework assignment of spending a weekend in Provincetown, Mass. as a prerequisite to voice a QUALIFIED opinion on the homosexual community.

Some gays are bigots. I see gays who don't fit your bill of hanging out in Provincetown Mass. The ones I see have kids, go to church, add to society, start businesses... More than can be said of some which I'm sure you'll agree with.

[fj1200]

Exactly why does it bother you?
If it does then don't read the thread! Don't reply , don't even glance at it.
Is that too hard or are you keen on defending yet another liberal specially protected group of damn perverts?
Then you wonder why so many question your true political stand..
Second and third hand defense of muslims, liberals, gays, Obama and others are why many question where
you truly stand.
And stop showing your massive bias by calling my friend Drummond an "idiot"..
He is a very intelligent guy. I do not recall either he or I ever calling you stupid!
Seems he and I give you far more respect than you care to show in return...
If you'd like that civility and manners to continue try some reciprocation of the politeness now shown you.
A friendly suggestion only. -Tyr

Who says it bothers me, it says more about them than it does me. I do know how some here are unable to defend their views and must circle the wagons when any hint of questioning comes up. Don't deny it, it's quite obvious even in this thread. And I can't really help when others are not able to read and comprehend what I post; they would much rather let their imagination run their thoughts.

As far as drummond... if he's so intent on being wrong, provably so, then what I call him is his fault. He could show some intelligence rather than post in his typical manner. Besides I attempted civility in the pollution thread and he showed the full extent of what he's able and prattled on about leftists rather than discussing the topic. As soon as he leaves his imagination behind then I will no longer need to call out the truth of his posting. :)

[glockmail]

Journalist Tresa Baldas wrote for The Detroit Free Press 6 November 2014:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, issued its decision three months after hearing same-sex marriage cases from all four states. In each of those states, federal judges had struck down same-sex marriage bans on constitutional grounds.


In a 2-1 vote, the Sixth Circuit overturned those decisions, concluding the definition of marriage should be left to the voters -- not judges -- and that voters should be allowed to decide whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.


"Not one of the plaintiffs' theories ... makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters," the court wrote.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/06/th-circuit-sex-marriage-ruling/18610117/)

So is my state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman valid or no?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So is my state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman valid or no?

I suspect currently in this nation nothing not directly sanctioned by King Obama is valid unless one is ready to fight for it!
Myself, I know in the next two years he will get more and more extreme--he is unbearable right now with his treason!
Imagine what he can and will do the next two years if not stopped!! -Tyr

[Jeff]

Police brutality is in the news too, and I post about that. I post about taxes that are in the news too. I think about it when I am posting about it.

You're not coming on to me here, are you?

fj is a liberal and a Fag :confused0058: OK the two go hand in hand but wow I am shocked :rofl1:

[indago]

Journalist Alexa Ura wrote for The New York Times 20 December 2014:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen states allowed same-sex marriage when Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman filed a lawsuit late last year challenging Texas’ constitutional ban on marriages that are not between a man and a woman. The couple, who had married in Massachusetts in 2009, live in Austin and collided with a Texas law when they could not both be listed on the birth certificate of their first child.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/us/a-texas-showdown-over-same-sex-marriage.html?ref=todayspaper)

Yes, I can see it now:

FULL NAME OF MOTHER: Cleopatra De Leon

FULL NAME OF FATHER: Nicole Dimetman

Now, how much sense does that make...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

fj is a liberal and a Fag :confused0058: OK the two go hand in hand but wow I am shocked :rofl1:

Well, I knew something was wrong with the boy! :laugh2:--Tyr

[fj1200]

So is my state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman valid or no?

It seems not.

4th Circuit Won't Stop Gay Marriage in SC (http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2014/11/18/4th-circuit-wont-stop-gay-marriage-in-sc/19237553/)

fj is a liberal and a Fag :confused0058: OK the two go hand in hand but wow I am shocked :rofl1:

Don't make me... :martian:

[Abbey Marie]

The problem is that you must accept his premise to be angry like him. nambla is disgusting enough on its own but tying the to two together is intellectually dishonest.

But that's the thing. Most people once thought gay marriage was disgusting, too. Do you really think we are not solidly on a road to making most people's proclivities legitimate? I've already heard more comments recently about legitimizing multiple spouses, for example.

But most upsetting, I believe this is true, from the original post. Any liberty-loving person would have a lot of trouble with this family being forced to host that wedding.

..“We’ve gone from tolerance to compulsion,’’ the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor, told me. ...

[fj1200]

But that's the thing. Most people once thought gay marriage was disgusting, too. Do you really think we are not solidly on a road to making most people's proclivities legitimate? I've already heard more comments recently about legitimizing multiple spouses, for example.

But most upsetting, I believe this is true, from the original post. Any liberty-loving person would have a lot of trouble with this family being forced to host that wedding.

I'm not sure where you found that but I agree, compulsion is not the best route to tolerance, see the Civil Rights Act. Nevertheless nambla is disgusting because pedophilia is disgusting. The question is the state preferencing one set of relationships over another. Don't you think that legitimizing relationships would lead to more stable relationships?

[tailfins]

But that's the thing. Most people once thought gay marriage was disgusting, too. Do you really think we are not solidly on a road to making most people's proclivities legitimate? I've already heard more comments recently about legitimizing multiple spouses, for example.

But most upsetting, I believe this is true, from the original post. Any liberty-loving person would have a lot of trouble with this family being forced to host that wedding.

For me disgusting never entered the picture. It's a simple matter of provoking God to judge our nation.

[indago]

nambla is disgusting because pedophilia is disgusting.


Pederasty — Not to be confused with Pedophilia ...Historically, pederasty has existed as a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. ...Geoffrey Gorer and others distinguish pederasty from pedophilia

article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty)

So, you are in denial, and attempting to blur the distinction between pederasty and pedophilia so that you can sustain your denial. Not surprising that you would now back away from your support of the homosexual lifestyle in this way, now that you see just where all this is heading.

[fj1200]

So, you are in denial, and attempting to blur the distinction between pederasty and pedophilia so that you can sustain your denial. Not surprising that you would now back away from your support of the homosexual lifestyle in this way, now that you see just where all this is heading.

WTF are you talking about? There is a distinction between the two just as there is a distinction between what consenting adults do and what pederasts do. :confused:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

WTF are you talking about? There is a distinction between the two just as there is a distinction between what consenting adults do and what pederasts do. :confused:

Yes, the thousand shades of grey excuse..
Going with that instead of a "moral absolute" is likely why you are so confused...
Of course going with the "shades of grey" crap keeps your so-called "enlightened credentials" intact , right? ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

Yes, the thousand shades of grey excuse..
Going with that instead of a "moral absolute" is likely why you are so confused...
Of course going with the "shades of grey" crap keeps your so-called "enlightened credentials" intact , right? ;)--Tyr

Confused? Not me. I know what words mean and don't have different opinions based on the sexes involved unlike yourself.

[Drummond]

Exactly why does it bother you?
If it does then don't read the thread! Don't reply , don't even glance at it.
Is that too hard or are you keen on defending yet another liberal specially protected group of damn perverts?
Then you wonder why so many question your true political stand..
Second and third hand defense of muslims, liberals, gays, Obama and others are why many question where
you truly stand.
And stop showing your massive bias by calling my friend Drummond an "idiot"..
He is a very intelligent guy. I do not recall either he or I ever calling you stupid!
Seems he and I give you far more respect than you care to show in return...
If you'd like that civility and manners to continue try some reciprocation of the politeness now shown you.
A friendly suggestion only. -Tyr

Thanks, Tyr, much appreciated.

FJ, pretty much perpetually, argues from positions of weakness. I fully understand that he needs to compensate for that, so he does it by insulting and (in his own mind, if in nobody else's) by trying to 'belittle' me, or others who oppose him.

It's completely pathetic. But if he didn't stoop to such things, he'd have to - shock, horror - sometimes ADMIT when he's WRONG. And .. well, that would never do.

Especially for a Leftie.

What combativeness FJ gets from me is no more, no less, than is deserved. And apart from saying as a general comment that Leftieism is ITSELF stupid ... I will not specifically mete out to FJ any comment he doesn't deserve. That isn't on the cards.

Pity that FJ can't reasonably say the same. Still, he can always turn over a new leaf. Not likely, I know .....

[fj1200]

Thanks, Tyr, much appreciated.

FJ, pretty much perpetually, argues from positions of weakness. I fully understand that he needs to compensate for that, so he does it by insulting and (in his own mind, if in nobody else's) by trying to 'belittle' me, or others who oppose him.

It's completely pathetic. But if he didn't stoop to such things, he'd have to - shock, horror - sometimes ADMIT when he's WRONG. And .. well, that would never do.

Especially for a Leftie.

What combativeness FJ gets from me is no more, no less, than is deserved. And apart from saying that Leftieism is ITSELF stupid ... I will not mete out to FJ any comment he doesn't deserve. That isn't on the cards.

Pity that FJ can't reasonably say the same. Still, he can always turn over a new leaf. Not likely, I know .....

:laugh: What a moron you are. Go running to the arms of the knuckleheads when the going gets rough. I've proven you are mentally incapable of hanging in an actual discussion without prattling on like a dolt (see pollution thread). You suck at this.

Admit you're wrong you ignorant fool.

[Drummond]

:laugh: What a moron you are. Go running to the arms of the knuckleheads when the going gets rough. I've proven you are mentally incapable of hanging in an actual discussion without prattling on like a dolt (see pollution thread). You suck at this.

Admit you're wrong you ignorant fool.

Did you post this without perceiving how foolish you were being ?

In no way are you doing anything more than confirming what's been said about you.

--- A sad case.

[fj1200]

Did you post this without perceiving how foolish you were being ?

In no way are you doing anything more than confirming what's been said about you.

--- A sad case.

Oh please. I already responded to his one-sided, self-serving drivel and of course he didn't bother to respond nor to do any introspection of his, or yours for that matter, behavior. It's hypocrites like you that cause all this unneeded strife when you prattle on about lefties and then have no ability to have a rational conversation, and then you go running to defend 'at' against tailfins when all 'at' does around here is make the same ridiculous jokes and eventually slinks away when his ignorance is challenged. Can you rise against the ridiculousness that you spread around here? I'm not hopeful.

[Drummond]

Oh please. I already responded to his one-sided, self-serving drivel and of course he didn't bother to respond nor to do any introspection of his, or yours for that matter, behavior. It's hypocrites like you that cause all this unneeded strife when you prattle on about lefties and then have no ability to have a rational conversation, and then you go running to defend 'at' against tailfins when all 'at' does around here is make the same ridiculous jokes and eventually slinks away when his ignorance is challenged. Can you rise against the ridiculousness that you spread around here? I'm not hopeful.

For your part, FJ, do you think you'll ever get through a single week on DP without finding an excuse (or several) to attack the Conservatives here ... be it myself, or any one of several others ?

'I' cause 'unneeded strife', eh ? Really ?

And if I have no ability to have a rational conversation (... such as this one, which in FjWorld, I'm 'not' having ...) .. then, how come all the post rewrites, abusive ones at that, ALWAYS originate from YOU ? How come you post so many messages consisting of nothing but denigrations ?

As Tyr has pointed out, I never stoop to the levels that you do.

As for AT .. you greatly underestimate his perceptiveness. I've seen quite a number of posts from him which, though they only contain commentaries, THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY ON THE MARK. I utterly support AT's comments on you, because you EARN and DESERVE them, every single one.

And AT has offered advice whose wisdom outstrips my own. That can only command my respect.

[fj1200]

For your part, FJ, do you think you'll ever get through a single week on DP without finding an excuse (or several) to attack the Conservatives here ... be it myself, or any one of several others ?

'I' cause 'unneeded strife', eh ? Really ?

And if I have no ability to have a rational conversation (... such as this one, which in FjWorld, I'm 'not' having ...) .. then, how come all the post rewrites, abusive ones at that, ALWAYS originate from YOU ? How come you post so many messages consisting of nothing but denigrations ?

:blah:

Hey moron, your leftie blather originates from you. You're wrong about that and you're too stupid or proud to admit it.

I attack conservatives like you torture puppies you fool.

[aboutime]

Hey moron, your leftie blather originates from you. You're wrong about that and you're too stupid or proud to admit it.

I attack conservatives like you torture puppies you fool.


Sounds like you need a refresher RAINBOW poster to make you feel less miserable fj. Your endless name calling is not only bad for your Liberal identity, but the name calling also brings more attention to your fight for Gay liberty.

[indago]

From The New York Times 22 December 2014:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has ruled that Idaho must pay more than $400,000 to the lawyers who successfully fought to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/us/politics/idaho-state-must-pay-in-same-sex-case.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0)

Not only do the Idahoans have to suffer the federal government forcing gay marriage onto them, they have to pay to have it done.


.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Confused? Not me. I know what words mean and don't have different opinions based on the sexes involved unlike yourself.

Amazing how you chose to put the word --"different" -- in front of the word --opinions--- yet chose not to add that word in front of the word --- "sexes" --, which is quite a tell in and of itself..
I deal in moral absolutes, so yes, the confusion rests squarely on your shoulders not mine!
Laws of God and Laws of Nature both reject and defeat your rational amigo..
What verification do you have that defeats both of those??--Tyr

[aboutime]

Amazing how you chose to put the word --"different" -- in front of the word --opinions--- yet chose not to add that word in front of the word --- "sexes" --, which is quite a tell in and of itself..
I deal in moral absolutes, so yes, the confusion rests squarely on your shoulders not mine!
Laws of God and Laws of Nature both reject and defeat your rational amigo..
What verification do you have that defeats both of those??--Tyr



Tyr. Let's just leave fj alone for the holidays. He's probably looking forward to attending the
annual "VILLAGE PEOPLE" concert, http://icansayit.com/images/villagepeeps.jpg





somewhere "OVER OR UNDER THE RAINBOW".

[tailfins]

H'm. I can't imagine any Leftie not being happy with such a statement.

It all makes for a highly pessimistic worldview. All this chip-chip-chipping away of Christian values ... by what means, short of full-blooded Conservatism coming to the fore, will this process be stopped ?

I daresay that one day, some Leftie or other will proclaim that acceptance of devil-worshipping is 'politically correct', since one mustn't be discriminatory !!!!

Don't get discouraged too quickly. The battle isn't over. I bet you think the abortion battle is over. Before you decide, consider that here in Texas, over 90% of the counties have zero abortion clinics. When it comes to same-sex marriage, people aren't just going to surrender an important Christian tenant. It's not about prejudice; it's about angering God and bringing judgement on our nation. As it says in Joshua 24:15 "As for Me and My House, We Will Serve the Lord".

[fj1200]

Amazing how you chose to put the word --"different" -- in front of the word --opinions--- yet chose not to add that word in front of the word --- "sexes" --, which is quite a tell in and of itself..
I deal in moral absolutes, so yes, the confusion rests squarely on your shoulders not mine!
Laws of God and Laws of Nature both reject and defeat your rational amigo..
What verification do you have that defeats both of those??--Tyr

:rolleyes: Another tell of your imagination. Besides I already know that you deal in the moral absolutes that you choose and I'm certainly not confused about that. Nevertheless is this another of those cases where you want God to legislate as opposed to those other cases where you state our government isn't Christian? If you weren't intellectually dishonest you wouldn't have any basis upon which to argue.


You miss my point entirely. My point is that we do not have a Christian government so scriptures do not apply.

[red state]

Did you post this without perceiving how foolish you were being ?

In no way are you doing anything more than confirming what's been said about you.

--- A sad case.

I simply pass over ignorant, hatred posts just as I blocked faggot jack@$$ and suggest others do the same if/when they tire of its stupidity.

As for this thread. Nobody, I've read judges or regular folks even mentioned banning the perverted and unnatural act of homosexuals YET the morally corrupt liberals get all huffy simply because WE fight for our rights to NOT have their UNholy marriages within our Holy places. WE also reserve the RIGHT to vote on preserving MARRIAGE and have not banned homosexuality. That is simple enough and what is obvious to me is the fight we see from homosexuals and other ilks from the left is the MINORITY dictating to the majority.

Their defeat in the courts over homosexual marriage is a major obstacle that prevents them from forcing THEIR perversions on the rest of us. If WE don't draw the line somewhere.....we WILL be forced to declare homosexuality normal and even HOLY. That is their objective........and I suspect MUCH worse will come if the line is not drawn.

If you want your disgusting, perverted lifestyle....you can keep your disgusting, perverted lifestyle (just don't try and force it on my schools, my State or my CHURCH).

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:rolleyes: Another tell of your imagination. Besides I already know that you deal in the moral absolutes that you choose and I'm certainly not confused about that. Nevertheless is this another of those cases where you want God to legislate as opposed to those other cases where you state our government isn't Christian? If you weren't intellectually dishonest you wouldn't have any basis upon which to argue.




Nevertheless is this another of those cases where you want God to legislate as opposed to those other cases where you state our government isn't Christian? If you weren't intellectually dishonest you wouldn't have any basis upon which to argue.


^^^^^^^^^ Are you this dense? Government(the big G-God) is legislating and that's what I scream against!!
GOVERNMENT IS LEGISLATING LAWS THAT FORCE CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS TO CONFORM TO GAY LIFESTYLES WHICH IS A GREAT INFRINGEMENT ON THE MAJORITY 'S RIGHTS!! AND THEY DO SO TO PLACATE A SMALL MINORITY .
I stand firmly against that, yet you claim I want government to be god!! Government has no Constitutional authority to subvert or nullify the rights inherent in freedom of religion in favor this sexual perversion..
And that's exactly what they are now doing!!!!
Yet you spin it around that I want government to act. My point is government has no damn legal right to act in favor of the gay perverts!
And I reject every pro-gay law or regulation that government unlawfully, unconstitutionally issues... ffkk-them....-Tyr

[fj1200]

I simply pass over ignorant, hatred posts... just as I blocked faggot jack@$$ ...

How do you pass over your own posts? Because all I see is much hate and ignorance vomiting from your keyboard. But please, next time you put me on ignore; keep ignoring me.

[fj1200]

^^^^^^^^^ Are you this dense? Government(the big G-God) is legislating and that's what I scream against!!
GOVERNMENT IS LEGISLATING LAWS THAT FORCE CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS TO CONFORM TO GAY LIFESTYLES WHICH IS A GREAT INFRINGEMENT ON THE MAJORITY 'S RIGHTS!! AND THEY DO SO TO PLACATE A SMALL MINORITY .
I stand firmly against that, yet you claim I want government to be god!! Government has no Constitutional authority to subvert or nullify the rights inherent in freedom of religion in favor this sexual perversion..
And that's exactly what they are now doing!!!!
Yet you spin it around that I want government to act. My point is government has no damn legal right to act in favor of the gay perverts!
And I reject every pro-gay law or regulation that government unlawfully, unconstitutionally issues... ffkk-them....-Tyr

I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on it. You want government to conform to your religious views in one respect (traditional marriage) but not others (making war/torture). But as I've said before the government shouldn't force others to accept anything that they don't agree with but you do have it wrong in placating a small minority. The gay minority is small but the group that supports their "right" to engage in certain privileges is not. And it's only going to get larger.


Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx)
Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx)


And I don't spin it that you want government to act, it's clear that you do. You want government to retain traditional marriage; correct? Government has every Constitutional authority to ensure that all groups receive equal protection under the law.

[tailfins]

I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on it. You want government to conform to your religious views in one respect (traditional marriage) but not others (making war/torture). But as I've said before the government shouldn't force others to accept anything that they don't agree with but you do have it wrong in placating a small minority. The gay minority is small but the group that supports their "right" to engage in certain privileges is not. And it's only going to get larger.


And I don't spin it that you want government to act, it's clear that you do. You want government to retain traditional marriage; correct? Government has every Constitutional authority to ensure that all groups receive equal protection under the law.


Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx)
Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx)

I bet it was even higher than that in Sodom and Gomorrah.

[gabosaurus]

You guys would be surprised if you knew how many gays and lesbians were gun nuts. Many non-flashy gays (the ones that don't demonstrate or demand stuff) are actually quite conservative in their viewpoints. Many served in the military for years and never told anyone.
Gays and conservatives are actually linked by your shared enjoyment of being a pain in the butt. :cool:

[tailfins]

You guys would be surprised if you knew how many gays and lesbians were gun nuts. Many non-flashy gays (the ones that don't demonstrate or demand stuff) are actually quite conservative in their viewpoints. Many served in the military for years and never told anyone.
Gays and conservatives are actually linked by your shared enjoyment of being a pain in the butt. :cool:

They are still provoking God and daring him to bring his judgement.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on it. You want government to conform to your religious views in one respect (traditional marriage) but not others (making war/torture). But as I've said before the government shouldn't force others to accept anything that they don't agree with but you do have it wrong in placating a small minority. The gay minority is small but the group that supports their "right" to engage in certain privileges is not. And it's only going to get larger.


And I don't spin it that you want government to act, it's clear that you do. You want government to retain traditional marriage; correct? Government has every Constitutional authority to ensure that all groups receive equal protection under the law.




And I don't spin it that you want government to act, it's clear that you do. You want government to retain traditional marriage; correct? Government has every Constitutional authority to ensure that all groups receive equal protection under the law.
Wrong again! Government is acting on it and I REJECT THAT TOTALLY.

For over two hundred years the norm was that marriage was between a male and a female. Now government acts to include other unifications into the act of marriage and does so by force of law! Are you deliberately being this damn dense or is it truly your belief
that government --not acting(retaining traditional marriage-(status quo) is our asking it to act!!!! Damn, Hoss we are demanding that it does not act!!! WE ARE SCREAMING IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ACT AS MARRAIGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN... NOT TWO MEN, TWO WOMEN, MAN AND ANIMAL, WOMAN AND ANIMAL, ETC...

I never asked government to act . I simply say it has no authority to act and it doesn't. For to act in favor of a small minority it violates the rights, beliefs and freedoms of the majority! That's insanity..

And that's a lie, the majority is not in favor of gays being married and how can you claim such ffing shat when government/lib/dem media pushes that damn propaganda in favor of its actions for gays?
Here is yet again where you argue for the stinking lib/dems agenda and bullshit and against conservative beliefs! --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How do you pass over your own posts? Because all I see is much hate and ignorance vomiting from your keyboard. But please, next time you put me on ignore; keep ignoring me.
Yes, we see how enlightened you are!!!
You screaming for the right of others(two men) to have anal/oral sex with each other all in the name of tolerance and so-called equality... then take that perversion a step farther -- to the right for those damn perverts to destroy the institution of marriage by government decree too!
And then you dare to call redstate hateful and ignorant!! -- :mad:--Tyr

[red state]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=719669#post719669)
How do you pass over your own posts? Because all I see is much hate and ignorance vomiting from your keyboard. But please, next time you put me on ignore; keep ignoring me.



TYR WROTE: Yes, we see how enlightened you are!!!
You screaming for the right of others(two men) to have anal/oral sex with each other all in the name of tolerance and so-called equality... then take that perversion a step farther -- to the right for those damn perverts to destroy the institution of marriage by government decree too!
And then you dare to call redstate hateful and ignorant!! -- :mad:--Tye

__________________________________________________ ___________

I never saw that I had been labeled hateful or ignorant but considering the source, I'll wear that badge with honor as it labels me a REAL AMERICAN who fights against filth and true ignorance such as the one that I wish you guys would stop honoring by quoting their hate, intolerance and stupidity.

I've stated that we have not demanded (although we should) that homosexuality be outlawed. All we have done is fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage and draw a line. The homosexuals and other deviants have proven that they will never draw a line with their perversions or attempts to feel better by forcing us to condone and celebrate their putrid existence.

If a line is not drawn, there will be additional attacks on the sanctity of marriage with Bill, Bob and Bart getting married or Flipper and FannyJo (where THEY have already stated that animals of higher intelligence have the capability to communicate with humans and consent to marry with humans). They can draw a line no more than they have integrity or decency.

[red state]

Guys/gals, PLEASE, if you are not going to place the ILKS of this board on IGNORE, please don't quote them. You can just as easily reference your reply to them without exposing those of us who have placed their ignorance on IGNORE. Debate or honor an actual person of intelligence but don't honor those of ignorance or willful animosity towards REAL AMERICANS by quoting them. Quote Adams, or Jefferson or the REAL AMERICANS of DP.......not the ILKS who have supported jafar and other America/Christian haters. Thanks!

[Jeff]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=719669#post719669)
How do you pass over your own posts? Because all I see is much hate and ignorance vomiting from your keyboard. But please, next time you put me on ignore; keep ignoring me.



TYR WROTE: Yes, we see how enlightened you are!!!
You screaming for the right of others(two men) to have anal/oral sex with each other all in the name of tolerance and so-called equality... then take that perversion a step farther -- to the right for those damn perverts to destroy the institution of marriage by government decree too!
And then you dare to call redstate hateful and ignorant!! -- :mad:--Tye

__________________________________________________ ___________

I never saw that I had been labeled hateful or ignorant but considering the source, I'll wear that badge with honor as it labels me a REAL AMERICAN who fights against filth and true ignorance such as the one that I wish you guys would stop honoring by quoting their hate, intolerance and stupidity.

I've stated that we have not demanded (although we should) that homosexuality be outlawed. All we have done is fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage and draw a line. The homosexuals and other deviants have proven that they will never draw a line with their perversions or attempts to feel better by forcing us to condone and celebrate their putrid existence.

If a line is not drawn, there will be additional attacks on the sanctity of marriage with Bill, Bob and Bart getting married or Flipper and FannyJo (where THEY have already stated that animals of higher intelligence have the capability to communicate with humans and consent to marry with humans). They can draw a line no more than they have integrity or decency.

Years ago while still in school in NJ I was always told sodomy was illegal, then while living in SC ( during the Clinton days ) I was raising Rottweilers and had a litter for sale, well a soldier from FT Jackson I think ( it was in Columbia SC I don't honestly recall the name of it ) came down to look at them and we talked for a few hours ( he wound up buying 2 pups as well ) but he told me the Military also said sodomy was illegal but where as I believe the definition of sodomy was anal sex he told me the military law book said sodomy was defined as anal sex or if ones lips touch another s genitals. Now I will tell you he was a MP but whether he was telling me the truth or not I don't know, seems like one of our military people here might know for sure. But if those laws are true than any type of Homosexual sex would be illegal forget about the moral issue's.

[fj1200]

I bet it was even higher than that in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Unknown but they certainly had a penchant for rape and inhospitality.


Consider the following (http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html). Leading conservative anti-gay evangelicals admit that the S@dom story is not about:

consensual homosexual intercourse, and
consensual homosexual relationships,
but the Genesis 19 story is about:
lack of hospitality and
attempted rape.




They are still provoking God and daring him to bring his judgement.

But one is a religious argument and the other is a government argument.

[fj1200]

Yes, we see how enlightened you are!!!
You screaming for the right of others(two men) to have anal/oral sex with each other all in the name of tolerance and so-called equality... then take that perversion a step farther -- to the right for those damn perverts to destroy the institution of marriage by government decree too!
And then you dare to call redstate hateful and ignorant!! -- :mad:--Tyr

How long ago were you trying to tell me how wonderful you and drummond were by not calling names and the whatnot but what you really are is a hypocrite who will defend the hatred and spiteful ignorance of your buddies? Get a clue.

Setting aside your hypocrisy for a moment two men do have the rights to do what they like. In the name of hatred and your religious interpretations you feel you have the right to dictate to them what they can do.


Guys/gals, PLEASE, allow me to remain ignorant to any viewpoint that doesn't match my own! Thanks!

At least you could do is be honest with yourself.

[fj1200]

Years ago while still in school in NJ I was always told sodomy was illegal...

Undoubtedly true. Do you support the power of government to dictate what you and the Mrs. can do?

A summary of the whole subject SCOTUSly speaking.


Bowers v. Hardwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick) 478 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 186 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/case.html) (1986), is a United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decision, overturned in 2003, that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)) sodomy law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law) criminalizing oral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex) and anal sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex) in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick#cite_note-decision-1)The majority opinion, written by Justice Byron White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White), argued that the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) did not confer "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick#cite_note-decision-1) A concurring opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger) cited the "ancient roots" of prohibitions against homosexual sex, quoting William Blackstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone)'s description of homosexual sex as an "infamous crime against nature", worse than rape, and "a crime not fit to be named." Burger concluded: "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick#cite_note-concurrence-2) Justice Lewis F. Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell) later said he regretted joining the majority, but thought the case of little importance at the time.
The dissent, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun), framed the issue as revolving around the right to privacy. Blackmun's dissent accused the Court of an "almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity" and an "overall refusal to consider the broad principles that have informed our treatment of privacy in specific cases." In response to invocations of religious taboos against homosexuality, Blackmun wrote: "That certain, but by no means all, religious groups condemn the behavior at issue gives the State no license to impose their judgments on the entire citizenry. The legitimacy of secular legislation depends, instead, on whether the State can advance some justification for its law beyond its conformity to religious doctrine."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick#cite_note-blackmun-dissent-3)
Seventeen years after Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court directly overruled its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas), 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional.


Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas), 539 U.S. 558 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation) (2003),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#cite_note-1) is a landmark decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_Sta tes) by the United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States). In the 6–3 ruling the Court struck down the sodomy law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law) in Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States), making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick), where it upheld a challenged Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)) statute and did not find a constitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) protection of sexual privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_privacy).Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process) under the 14th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy) between consenting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent) adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#cite_note-2)
The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amici curiae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amici_curiae) ("friends of the court") briefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_(law)) were filed. Its outcome was celebrated by gay rights advocates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_advocates), who hoped that further legal advances might result as a consequence.

[fj1200]

Wrong again! Government is acting on it and I REJECT THAT TOTALLY.

For over two hundred years the norm was that marriage was between a male and a female. Now government acts to include other unifications into the act of marriage and does so by force of law! Are you deliberately being this damn dense or is it truly your belief
that government --not acting(retaining traditional marriage-(status quo) is our asking it to act!!!! Damn, Hoss we are demanding that it does not act!!! WE ARE SCREAMING IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ACT AS MARRAIGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN... NOT TWO MEN, TWO WOMEN, MAN AND ANIMAL, WOMAN AND ANIMAL, ETC...

I never asked government to act . I simply say it has no authority to act and it doesn't. For to act in favor of a small minority it violates the rights, beliefs and freedoms of the majority! That's insanity..

And that's a lie, the majority is not in favor of gays being married and how can you claim such ffing shat when government/lib/dem media pushes that damn propaganda in favor of its actions for gays?
Here is yet again where you argue for the stinking lib/dems agenda and bullshit and against conservative beliefs! --Tyr

A poll is a lie? :rolleyes: Your imagination sure is but that's a different issue, please point out where I have argued against limited government conservative beliefs.

Nevertheless a litany of things that were illegal/wrong/unconstitutional/discriminatory/etc. that were no longer valid would be forthcoming from you? Surely you will need to defend those things as well. Surely you are for blue laws and the illegality of divorce.

And it's clear that you are demanding that government act in your favor if you have been in support of the countless laws/state constitutional amendments that have been proposed defining marriage or civil unions. At least be honest about your demands. As for me I've stated repeatedly that the state shouldn't intervene in definitions of marriage and leave it as a private matter but as long as the state defines relationships and grants privileges based on that definition then equal protection, the Constitutional one, should prevail. At least debate this honestly please.

But you might have a point if you can show me the Constitutional right for only men and women to engage in marriage.

[indago]

For over two hundred years the norm was that marriage was between a male and a female. Now government acts to include other unifications into the act of marriage and does so by force of law!

Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography, wrote of the federal judiciary: "We have seen too that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independant rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."

Wasn't this quite prophetic, indeed?

[Drummond]

How long ago were you trying to tell me how wonderful you and drummond were by not calling names and the whatnot but what you really are is a hypocrite who will defend the hatred and spiteful ignorance of your buddies? Get a clue.

Setting aside your hypocrisy for a moment two men do have the rights to do what they like. In the name of hatred and your religious interpretations you feel you have the right to dictate to them what they can do.

At least you could do is be honest with yourself.

.. and YOU, FJ, could start openly admitting just how much of a Leftie you really are !!

You're the 'Ultimate Thatcherite', the 'One True Thatcherite' .. ?? Well ... and I've posted about this before, so you certainly SHOULD know about it ... are you aware of British legislation, passed in the 1980's, called 'Section 28' .. ?

A reminder ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28


Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the controversial addition of Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986 (affecting England, Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland), enacted on 24 May 1988. The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"

Evidently - you DISAGREE with Lady Thatcher's own thinking on such matters. See this, from a LEFTIE publication (.. so you'll accept its contents without question, of course ... to say nothing of its obvious Leftie biases, which you are currently reflecting -)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-poster-girl-gay-rights


Feel free to admire her on the economy and Falklands. When it comes to LGBT issues, she threw gay kids like me to the wolves.

Many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are sincerely and deeply mourning Margaret Thatcher's passing. The gay entrepreneur Ivan Massow called her "a poster girl for gay rights" and said that, despite her being "pilloried for letting section 28 go through on her watch … her attitude to homosexuality is often misunderstood". Indeed, Pink News described her just as a "controversial figure on gay issues", noting that the artists Gilbert and George described her as a "gay icon".


It's illogical to think that people of a shared sexuality would also share politics. Thatcher's awesome belief in herself and in her vision for Britain, her commitment to the rights of the individual and sweeping economic policies, found her many like-minded gay supporters. But, despite the Boadicea-like Commons performances, the hair, handbag and all the other hard to resist superficialities, the reality is that Thatcher presided over and took advantage of the most devastatingly homophobic time in recent British history.


The 1987 election saw Tory ad campaigns trying to portray Labour as actively trying to pervert children. One billboard showed a line of young men wearing badges such as "Gay pride" and "Gay sports day" with a slogan, "This is Labour's camp. Do you want to live in it?".


After winning the 1987 election Thatcher knew she was on to a winner. She denounced local education authorities for teaching children that "they have an inalienable right to be gay" and brought in the hated clause, then section, 28, which outlawed the promotion of homosexuality as "a pretend family relationship".

You're the 'one true Thatcherite' .. ?? THEN EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT SEE EYE TO EYE WITH HER ON THIS - AND WHY YOUR THINKING IS FAR TO THE LEFT OF HERS REGARDING THIS SUBJECT !!

Let me remind you. Elsewhere, you've challenged me to list your Left-wing positions. Also elsewhere, I've made the point that you will continue to demonstrate Left wing thinking because that is how your thinking goes, meaning that you cannot help but demonstrate it in the future. Well - HERE IS ONE EXAMPLE OF WHERE YOU'VE SHOWN US THE TRUTH OF YOU.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography, wrote of the federal judiciary: "We have seen too that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independant rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."

Wasn't this quite prophetic, indeed?

Jefferson was a philosopher and he knew the inherent evil in man's fallen nature.. Certainly knew his history too and saw all power corrupts.., the more power the more corrupt one becomes.
He was also a genius and much of that genius is written into our Constitution..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How long ago were you trying to tell me how wonderful you and drummond were by not calling names and the whatnot but what you really are is a hypocrite who will defend the hatred and spiteful ignorance of your buddies? Get a clue.

Setting aside your hypocrisy for a moment two men do have the rights to do what they like. In the name of hatred and your religious interpretations you feel you have the right to dictate to them what they can do.



At least you could do is be honest with yourself.

Stop mixing apples and oranges!!!
I don't give a damn what two men do in their bedroom in their private residences . That is between them and God that will judge them.

I am speaking of Federal government by law(force of law) dictating that is normal behavior and that we that have moral and religious opposition are now being forced to not oppose it or shun it.. Law dictating certain actions we must now take in regards to that damn perversion.
Those same laws are used to teach our children it is normal behavior and nothing to be judged as wrong, sinful or repugnant!
Thus Federal government force is being used to set moral standards that are in direct opposition to decency and Christian beliefs!!
Federal government has no Constitutional authority to suppress the rights and beliefs of the majority in order to advance this perversion by a minority. -Tyr

[Jeff]

Undoubtedly true. Do you support the power of government to dictate what you and the Mrs. can do?

A summary of the whole subject SCOTUSly speaking.

So in other words we had to rewrite the book in order to allow Gays to have sex let alone be married, nope don't agree and never will. Sex is a natural beautiful thing, making love to the one you love, well there is nothing better, but IMO having anal sex isn't beautiful it is nasty, perverted and hell I can't off hand even think of any animals that will do it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So in other words we had to rewrite the book in order to allow Gays to have sex let alone be married, nope don't agree and never will. Sex is a natural beautiful thing, making love to the one you love, well there is nothing better, but IMO having anal sex isn't beautiful it is nasty, perverted and hell I can't off hand even think of any animals that will do it.

REWRITE THE BOOK, TOSS IN LAWS TO FORCE OTHERS TO HAVE TO ACT AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND SET UP A CULTURAL SYSTEM TO PUNISH AND EVEN DESTROY THE CAREERS OF THOSE THAT EVEN DARE TO CRITICISE THE DAMN PERVERSION!!
In others words -- socialist edicts and punishments illegally issued by our government.
I reject every damn one of them and government can go straight to hell.
Yes, I do totally rebel against such dictatorial edicts.
Nobody or thing(even government) gets to force me to accept what I know the be not only wrong but pure evil in action and deed.. --Tyr

[tailfins]

REWRITE THE BOOK, TOSS IN LAWS TO FORCE OTHERS TO HAVE TO ACT AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND SET UP A CULTURAL SYSTEM TO PUNISH AND EVEN DESTROY THE CAREERS OF THOSE THAT EVEN DARE TO CRITICISE THE DAMN PERVERSION!!
In others words -- socialist edicts and punishments illegally issued by our government.
I reject every damn one of them and government can go straight to hell.
Yes, I do totally rebel against such dictatorial edicts.
Nobody or thing(even government) gets to force me to accept what I know the be not only wrong but pure evil in action and deed.. --Tyr

I generally leave it to God to judge them. My questions is this: If you thought God was about to strike someone dead with a bolt of lightning, would you want to be standing next to them?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I generally leave it to God to judge them. My questions is this: If you thought God was about to strike someone dead with a bolt of lightning, would you want to be standing next to them?

I would prefer to be not within a mile of a gay man or woman at any given place or time..-Tyr

[sundaydriver]

We're going to Ken & Jims New Years party! 2 great guys that have been together for 30 years. Give em credit, good people are who they are and take them as you find them. Not "fem", food will be fantastic, and they really know how to throw a party. See ya there Tyr. :poke:

[Jeff]

We're going to Ken & Jims New Years party! 2 great guys that have been together for 30 years. Give em credit, good people are who they are and take them as you find them. Not "fem", food will be fantastic, and they really know how to throw a party. See ya there Tyr. :poke:

Reminds me of a joke


Two guys are sitting at a bar getting drunk one day bragging about there manhood when the one guys says he is so large woman fear him, hearing this the other guy knowing he is full of it said prove it, so the first guy drops his pants, the other guy looks and laughs and says I am twice that and drops his pants to prove it, about that time a gay guy walks up to the bar , the bartender says can I get you a beer and the gay guy seeing the two drunks says naaa I will just take the buffet :laugh:


Enjoy your party, and Happy New Year !!

[indago]

Reminds me of a joke


Two guys are sitting at a bar getting drunk one day bragging about there manhood when the one guys says he is so large woman fear him, hearing this the other guy knowing he is full of it said prove it, so the first guy drops his pants, the other guy looks and laughs and says I am twice that and drops his pants to prove it, about that time a gay guy walks up to the bar , the bartender says can I get you a beer and the gay guy seeing the two drunks says naaa I will just take the buffet :laugh:


Enjoy your party, and Happy New Year !!

Then there's the one about the two condoms walking by the gay bar...

[fj1200]

Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography, wrote of the federal judiciary: "We have seen too that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independant rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."

Wasn't this quite prophetic, indeed?

Nobody likes the judiciary when it decides against them. Even when decided correctly.

[fj1200]

.. and YOU, FJ, could start openly admitting just how much of a Leftie you really are !!

You're the 'Ultimate Thatcherite', the 'One True Thatcherite' .. ??

:blah:

Ah, I see you're adding to this thread with your own brand of stupid. Congratulations are in order to acknowledge that you can nothing other than regurgitate the words of others. Try explaining in your own words the governments interest in regulating the interpersonal relationships of individual citizens.

Nevertheless I'm sure Mags would have been appalled at the vile hatred spewed by small minded individuals such as yourself in her name. I'm sure she would have recognized that the government has no interest in regulating behaviors of free citizens. :)

[fj1200]

Stop mixing apples and oranges!!!
I don't give a damn what two men do in their bedroom in their private residences . That is between them and God that will judge them.

I am speaking of Federal government by law(force of law) dictating that is normal behavior and that we that have moral and religious opposition are now being forced to not oppose it or shun it.. Law dictating certain actions we must now take in regards to that damn perversion.
Those same laws are used to teach our children it is normal behavior and nothing to be judged as wrong, sinful or repugnant!
Thus Federal government force is being used to set moral standards that are in direct opposition to decency and Christian beliefs!!
Federal government has no Constitutional authority to suppress the rights and beliefs of the majority in order to advance this perversion by a minority. -Tyr

Would you mean the apples and oranges that show you to be a hypocrite? Don't work that way hoss. And I'm pretty sure you do care, if you didn't I'm sure we'd see far fewer posts on the subject.

Anyway, which of your rights and beliefs have been suppressed by Federal law?

[fj1200]

So in other words we had to rewrite the book in order to allow Gays to have sex let alone be married, nope don't agree and never will. Sex is a natural beautiful thing, making love to the one you love, well there is nothing better, but IMO having anal sex isn't beautiful it is nasty, perverted and hell I can't off hand even think of any animals that will do it.

Actually we had to rewrite the book so anyone could engage in sodomy. It ain't my thing, it ain't your thing but the question is the state's interest in regulating such matters setting aside that many human "animals" engage in that act.


Sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States), which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.

You do know that gay people love each other right?

[indago]

Try explaining in your own words the governments interest in regulating the interpersonal relationships of individual citizens.

It is quite obvious that the "governments interest" lies in the endorsement and proliferation of homosexuality in America.

[fj1200]

It is quite obvious that the "governments interest" lies in the endorsement and proliferation of homosexuality in America.

Quite. :rolleyes: Why is that the government's interest?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would you mean the apples and oranges that show you to be a hypocrite? Don't work that way hoss. And I'm pretty sure you do care, if you didn't I'm sure we'd see far fewer posts on the subject.

Anyway, which of your rights and beliefs have been suppressed by Federal law?

Can you even read?

Am I posting against the private acts in bedrooms or am I posting against government actions taken to force us into acceptance, compliance and endorsement that homosexuality is normal. Government needs to get the hell out of my religious beliefs like the way they stay the hell out of the edicts, savagery, actions and treason every damn American muslim engages in every damn day!
At least we Christian are not taught to overthrow this nation, to kill , convert or enslave every non-Christian. That's exactly what every damn muslim is taught except it is every damn non-muslim (infidel) they want to do that to !!!
As such they actually teach treason but we see the Feds support them , so we must ask why?

Now tell me why I should obey, or willingly accept anything the Federal government pushes on me..
They have no Constitutional authority to attempt to force me to change my religious views because they have allied with enemies of this nation the mulims!!
Therefore, their edicts(unconstitutional laws) are rejected by me and they can go straight to hell..
Nobody gets to force me to change my religious views and any person trying in person will find that out the hard way and that includes this rogue, corrupt government. -Tyr

[indago]

You do know that gay people love each other right?

You're not fooling anybody with that line: it's all about the BENEFITS

If they truly had any love in their heart they wouldn't burden society with their perversities...

[indago]

Can you even read?

Am I posting against the private acts in bedrooms or am I posting against government actions taken to force us into acceptance, compliance and endorsement that homosexuality is normal.

Oh, fj1200 can read alright, but puts up strawman to divert.

[indago]

Quite. :rolleyes: Why is that the government's interest?

You tell me! The federal government is the one that is doing the enabling, endorsing and proliferating, and you are condoning it.

[fj1200]

Can you even read?

Am I posting against the private acts in bedrooms or am I posting against government actions taken to force us into acceptance, compliance and endorsement that homosexuality is normal. Government needs to get the hell out of my religious beliefs like the way they stay the hell out of the edicts, savagery, actions and treason every damn American muslim engages in every damn day!
At least we Christian are not taught to overthrow this nation, to kill , convert or enslave every non-Christian. That's exactly what every damn muslim is taught except it is every damn non-muslim (infidel) they want to do that to !!!
As such they actually teach treason but we see the Feds support them , so we must ask why?

Now tell me why I should obey, or willingly accept anything the Federal government pushes on me..
They have no Constitutional authority to attempt to force me to change my religious views because they have allied with enemies of this nation the mulims!!
Therefore, their edicts(unconstitutional laws) are rejected by me and they can go straight to hell..
Nobody gets to force me to change my religious views and any person trying in person will find that out the hard way and that includes this rogue, corrupt government. -Tyr

It would appear I can read your posts better than you can write them. :slap: Don't say you don't care what they do behind closed doors just after a post where you complain about government repealing sodomy laws. Then you further complain about mixing apples and oranges in one post and just a few posts later in a "gay" thread you're prattling on about Muslims. Keep it together dude.

But rather than directly respond to yet another disjointed post I'll ask again: Which of your rights have been suppressed by Federal law? Which unconstitutional laws have been passed?

[fj1200]

You're not fooling anybody with that line: it's all about the BENEFITS

If they truly had any love in their heart they wouldn't burden society with their perversities...


Hmm, how about answering the question you ran away from awhile back: Why should government grant you benefits that aren't granted to all?

And how are they burdening society?


Oh, fj1200 can read alright, but puts up strawman to divert.

Sorry, the definition of strawman is not having a better argument than you. :slap:


You tell me! The federal government is the one that is doing the enabling, endorsing and proliferating, and you are condoning it.

The government has no interest IMO, unless you wanted to include children, which is why I'm only condoning that the government not be in the business of regulating private behavior. It seems you would like the government to increase its role.

[Drummond]

Nevertheless I'm sure Mags would have been appalled at the vile hatred spewed by small minded individuals such as yourself in her name. I'm sure she would have recognized that the government has no interest in regulating behaviors of free citizens. :)

You really have no clue at all as to what brand of politician Margaret Thatcher was, have you ?

If you were correct in your 'understanding', then none of the laws she directed to be passed in Parliament against Trade Union excesses would've existed. Try reconciling, for example, her limiting picket lines to no more than six people, with your claim 'she would have recognized that the government has no interest in regulating behaviors of free citizens.'

Of course, you can do no such thing. 'Free citizens', if free from Governmental controls (.. which is a nonsense, because it negates the ability of Governments to make any activity of any individual illegal ... aren't Governments empowered to pass laws against stealing, for example ??) are 'free' to do ANYTHING AT ALL.

I've already posted about Section 28. Did you not comprehend it ?

Margaret presided over its passing into law in Parliament !!! Do you deny this ? Do you deny her support for it ??

FJ ... really ... WAKE UP.

[indago]

Hmm, how about answering the question you ran away from awhile back... (and other and sundry aberrations, ramifications, fixations, lamentations, hallucinations, and incantations)

You don't have anything worth responding to, just circular mamby jahamby...

[indago]

FJ ... really ... WAKE UP.

No, don't wake him up: let him remain in his stupor...

[aboutime]

You don't have anything worth responding to, just circular mamby jahamby...



indago. As fj wants you to see. fj is really, really, really impressed with himself, and his knack for making himself look even more foolish, and egotistically arrogant by using words that impress his success at the failed Lobotomy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh, fj1200 can read alright, but puts up strawman to divert.

This I know. Then when called on it he spins into other realms and/or issues his standard sarcasm as if it answered and/or solved his being called on his subterfuge..
Or he demands you re-explain in lengthy detail what is already commonly known and has been stated many, many time before ..
A typical diversionary tactic.... -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It would appear I can read your posts better than you can write them. :slap: Don't say you don't care what they do behind closed doors just after a post where you complain about government repealing sodomy laws. Then you further complain about mixing apples and oranges in one post and just a few posts later in a "gay" thread you're prattling on about Muslims. Keep it together dude.

But rather than directly respond to yet another disjointed post I'll ask again: Which of your rights have been suppressed by Federal law? Which unconstitutional laws have been passed?

Yes, I keep making that connection--the alliance of the gays and muslims with the dem party and you keep pretending its not true and/or not relevant. Both of those erroneous positions you hold are false and used to dismiss the nature, purpose and destructive actions coming from that alliance.
And yes its relevant every time the dem party is being discussed with either group in the mix...
Now its gay "extra special rights" --"hint illegal" rights being discussed so the trio that I speak of is to make a point of the corruption
of each group and that alliance..
So no, you don't read my posts better than I --instead you answer questions not asked and ignore/ridicule legitimate questions that are asked....
So you've now noticed that I've started to play that back on you! :laugh:
Took you long enough, as I've only been doing it for about 3 months now and increased it each week. :laugh:--Tyr

[LiberalNation]

Are fucking awesome. Hey dawgs

[tailfins]

Are fucking awesome. Hey dawgs

Spend a weekend in Provincetown, Massachusetts. Seeing is believing.

[indago]

indago. As fj wants you to see. fj is really, really, really impressed with himself, and his knack for making himself look even more foolish, and egotistically arrogant by using words that impress his success at the failed Lobotomy.

We were warned about his ilk:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. ...It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." — Justice Joseph Bradley - United States Supreme Court (1886)

[indago]

Karin Johnson reported for WLWT5 — Cincinnati 31 December 2014:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of the 17-year-old struck and killed on Interstate 71 in Union Township early Sunday morning say the transgender teen committed suicide. "If you are reading this, it means that I have committed suicide,” Leelah Alcorn wrote on her Tumblr page before her death. Leelah Alcorn was born Joshua Alcorn and was in the process of transitioning to her life as a female.

Her death has sparked an outcry in the LGBT community.

Her last words before goodbye were, "Fix society. Please."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

report (http://www.wlwt.com/news/my-death-needs-to-mean-something-transgender-teens-suicide-note/30464164)


Ah, yes! The gay is fuktup, so society needs to be fixed...

[Jeff]

Karin Johnson reported for WLWT5 — Cincinnati 31 December 2014:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of the 17-year-old struck and killed on Interstate 71 in Union Township early Sunday morning say the transgender teen committed suicide. "If you are reading this, it means that I have committed suicide,” Leelah Alcorn wrote on her Tumblr page before her death. Leelah Alcorn was born Joshua Alcorn and was in the process of transitioning to her life as a female.

Her death has sparked an outcry in the LGBT community.

Her last words before goodbye were, "Fix society. Please."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

report (http://www.wlwt.com/news/my-death-needs-to-mean-something-transgender-teens-suicide-note/30464164)


Ah, yes! The gay is fuktup, so society needs to be fixed...

All that needs to be fixed is these perverts, they want to get off anyway they can, and if the BOY that killed himself looked or talked anything like the guy in the video I understand, I hate to sound heartless but this is not a illness ( just like the flaming fag said in the video ) This is a perversion this is folks that don't love themselves and don't feel like they can find a mate, heck man hit the gym and become a man there are many woman looking for a honest hard working man, it isn't all about being the best looking but not many woman are going to go for a guy that looks and sounds like he wishes he was anything but a man. As I have said earlier in this thread, it is unnatural and IMO just plain wrong and I can't even think of one animal that practices in this behavior, this country has gotten to the point where they make excuses for everything, kids acting out in school give hims some pills, kids acting out at home give him some pills, how about kid acting out period give him a boot in the A$$, same thing goes here, stop making excuses and call it what it is. You go to these adult book stores ( where gays hang out ) and they have glory holes, each booth is disgusting, the floors sticky, heck some of these places actually have paper towels and other cleaning things in each booth and we are going to call this sheot normal, no it is a perversion, I seriously doubt anyone was born to suck on something that pops through a hole in the wall, me myself the first time I seen that I backed up and kicked that thing as hard as I could :laugh: Yes they do have regular Hetro films there as well and at one point in my life I did enjoy porno ( probably like most young men ) But I never ( no matter how excited I was thought about getting pleasure any other way than by a female ) this is a sexual perversion that if it must be it should be kept between two consenting adults in the privacy of there own home.

[sundaydriver]

As I have said earlier in this thread, it is unnatural and IMO just plain wrong and I can't even think of one animal that practices in this behavior.

There's a lot of quirks in nature we don't fully understand.

So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality? Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

[Drummond]

No, don't wake him up: let him remain in his stupor...:laugh::laugh::laugh:

It's not really a question of his waking up in any case ! Far more to the point, FJ needs to be what he claims to be, instead of the Leftie that he truly is.

[Drummond]

There's a lot of quirks in nature we don't fully understand.

So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality? Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Roughly translated, then .. if animals can be said to have certain traits, then humans must also be prone to them ??

Are we not more highly evolved than the rest of the animal kingdom ? Do we not have values, capacities, capabilities, that set us apart from them ?

[tailfins]

Roughly translated, then .. if animals can be said to have certain traits, then humans must also be prone to them ??

Are we not more highly evolved than the rest of the animal kingdom ? Do we not have values, capacities, capabilities, that set us apart from them ?

I can make an even simpler case: Until homosexual leaders quell the anti-Christian bigotry among their own interest group, we can only assume that accommodating them legislatively will result in discrimination against Christians. Exhibit A: The Mayor of Houston.

[indago]

Caitlin Dewey wrote for The Washington Post 31 December 2014:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a heart-wrenching letter posted to Tumblr on Dec. 28, Leelah Alcorn ...wrote that she hoped readers would hear what happened to her and try to “fix society.” But as the note began circulating more widely this week, the Internet’s self-appointed vigilantes have turned themselves to a less ambitious quest: “fixing” Alcorn’s mother, Carla, and her father, Doug. Carla was ...the primary antagonist in her battle to gender-transition...

...Carla “reacted extremely negatively, telling me it was a phase,” Leelah wrote. That is not, needless to say, the reaction endorsed by LGBT advocates or family psychotherapists. So in revenge, Leelah’s supporters dug up Carla’s Facebook page and flooded her with messages about Leelah’s death.

“You’re disgusting.” “You awful b—-.” “Your daughter killed herself because of you.” “The entire Internet … can see what you have done.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/12/31/leelah-alcorns-death-was-tragic-but-harassing-her-parents-is-not-the-answer/)

One commenter wrote: "This person was physically a boy, had a boys name and was raised a boy. His confusion, that "he" was not a "he" was in his mind. That to a sane person would indicate a mental issue or just confusion. That the article uses a made up name, made up by the kid, is also confusing. No legal document would indicate anything other than a boy named Joshua yet we are hearing about a girl named Leelah. The parents are within their full rights to care for THEIR child, they loved that boy more than anyone else and had only their best interests in mind. That a bunch of wacko libs that are themselves terribly confused, thereby calling a boy a girl and a kid named Joshua a kid named Leelah, also indicates extreme confusion. Were any of you confused from the time you were 12 - 21? Its a time of massive confusion, we've all been there. Just because kid says he's a Doberman named Spike doesn't make him a Doberman named Spike anymore than a boy named Josh calls himself a girl named whatever."

[Neo]

i can make an even simpler case: Until homosexual leaders quell the anti-christian bigotry among their own interest group, we can only assume that accommodating them legislatively will result in discrimination against christians. Exhibit a: The mayor of houston.

spot on!

[indago]

Journalist Cheryl K. Chumley wrote for The Washington Times 2 January 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several counties in Florida have put the kibosh on performing any weddings as a sort of duck and dodge against serving gays — the logic being that clerks with religious objections to homosexual marriage aren’t breaking any laws if they don’t offer services to anyone. ...“It was decided as a team, as an office, this would be what we do so that there wouldn’t be any discrimination,” Duval County Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell told The Florida Times-Union. “The easiest way is to not do them at all.” He also said that marriage “is between a man and a woman” and that “personally, it would go against my beliefs to perform a ceremony that is other than that,” AP reported.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/2/florida-courthouses-stop-all-weddings-to-avoid-per/)

[fj1200]

You don't have anything worth responding to, just circular mamby jahamby...

It's called logic. I can see where you're confused. When in doubt you just put your head in the sand. :)

[fj1200]

... subterfuge..

:laugh: If you weren't this duplicitous in your posts you wouldn't have much to add. Onward to more Muzzy blather in a gay thread.


Yes, I keep making that connection--the alliance of the gays and muslims with the dem party and you keep pretending its not true and/or not relevant. Both of those erroneous positions you hold are false and used to dismiss the nature, purpose and destructive actions coming from that alliance.
And yes its relevant every time the dem party is being discussed with either group in the mix...
Now its gay "extra special rights" --"hint illegal" rights being discussed so the trio that I speak of is to make a point of the corruption
of each group and that alliance..
So no, you don't read my posts better than I --instead you answer questions not asked and ignore/ridicule legitimate questions that are asked....
So you've now noticed that I've started to play that back on you! :laugh:
Took you long enough, as I've only been doing it for about 3 months now and increased it each week. :laugh:--Tyr

Them there's a whole bunch of words that equate to not answering the question. BTW, show me a legitimate question and it will be answered.

[fj1200]

We were warned about his ilk:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. ...It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." — Justice Joseph Bradley - United States Supreme Court (1886)

Are you suggesting I proposed something unconstitutional? Do tell.

[fj1200]

You really have no clue at all as to what brand of politician Margaret Thatcher was, have you ?

If you were correct in your 'understanding', then none of the laws she directed to be passed in Parliament against Trade Union excesses would've existed. Try reconciling, for example, her limiting picket lines to no more than six people, with your claim 'she would have recognized that the government has no interest in regulating behaviors of free citizens.'

Of course, you can do no such thing. 'Free citizens', if free from Governmental controls (.. which is a nonsense, because it negates the ability of Governments to make any activity of any individual illegal ... aren't Governments empowered to pass laws against stealing, for example ??) are 'free' to do ANYTHING AT ALL.

I've already posted about Section 28. Did you not comprehend it ?

Margaret presided over its passing into law in Parliament !!! Do you deny this ? Do you deny her support for it ??

FJ ... really ... WAKE UP.

Silly fool, I'm just using "Thatcherite" logic as used by you. :shrug: "Different realities assert themselves and we evolve to meet them." In other words you don't like what Mags espouses and you get to claim it doesn't matter. If you weren't a hypocrite you wouldn't be much of anything.

But what I've verified with more of your blather above is that you are unable to discuss the question at hand and can only regurgitate what you don't understand. I think I have a new name for you: Hackerite. It seems fitting for a big government hack such as yourself. :)


It's not really a question of his waking up in any case ! Far more to the point, FJ needs to be what he claims to be, instead of the Leftie that he truly is.

Ah yes, when in doubt going running like an idiot back to your knuckleheads. Quite sad.

[fj1200]

I can make an even simpler case: Until homosexual leaders quell the anti-Christian bigotry among their own interest group, we can only assume that accommodating them legislatively will result in discrimination against Christians. Exhibit A: The Mayor of Houston.

What of the anti-homosexual bigotry of (some) Christian leaders?

[tailfins]

What of the anti-homosexual bigotry of (some) Christian leaders?

You have answered your own question: SOME Christian leaders. The anti-Christian bigotry among homosexuals is pervasive. Refusing to condone homosexual behavior is Biblically based, and it for the moment is protected by the First Amendment free exercise clause. The anti-Christian bigotry among homosexuals is based on what again?

[fj1200]

You have answered your own question: SOME Christian leaders. The anti-Christian bigotry among homosexuals is pervasive. Refusing to condone homosexual behavior is Biblically based, and it for the moment is protected by the First Amendment free exercise clause. The anti-Christian bigotry among homosexuals is based on what again?

That wasn't really an answer to my own question IMO. I'm not really questioning that the bigotry exists by some but it is by no means all. What is it based on? I can't say specifically but the question still stands the bigotry among Christians towards homosexuals; did one beget the other?

The question whether it is truly biblically based is a matter of opinion.

[sundaydriver]

Roughly translated, then .. if animals can be said to have certain traits, then humans must also be prone to them ??

No, but it does make it biologically possible and if so there goes the argument of gay by choice.


Are we not more highly evolved than the rest of the animal kingdom ? Do we not have values, capacities, capabilities, that set us apart from them ?

Yes we are. We are the only species that kills for fun and personal gain.

[indago]

Hayley Fox wrote for Takepart.com 8 January 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last time the Supreme Court reviewed gay marriage cases was in October, and it declined to take any up. At that time only 19 states had marriage equality; now that number is at 36, said Charles Joughin, national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights group that advocates for LGBT equality. “Seventy percent of Americans now live in a state with marriage equality, and that number was considerably lower the last time these justices considered whether to take up a marriage case,” he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://news.yahoo.com/3-arguments-against-gay-marriage-may-decide-once-000859648.html)

When it is considered that some of those States were forced into accepting the gay marriage by the feds, the statement by Charles Joughin is deceptive, at best.


Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

[fj1200]

When it is considered that some of those States were forced into accepting the gay marriage by the feds...

Surely you mean the Constitution.


Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

Indeed.

[indago]

Surely you mean the Constitution.

No! The federal courts... THE FEDS

[tailfins]

Surely you mean the Constitution.



Indeed.

I will split the difference with you an call it a warped interpretation of the Constitution that never existed until recently.

[fj1200]

No! The federal courts... THE FEDS

As in interpreting the Constitution -> equal protection. It's not a real hard question unless you just really don't like the answer. :dunno:


I will split the difference with you an call it a warped interpretation of the Constitution that never existed until recently.

Equal protection has existed for quite some time. But I would agree with you if the Federal government hadn't privileged marriage in so many ways for so long.

[indago]

equal protection

Equal Protection of the Laws...

"nor shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." — From Fourteenth Amendment

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." — Michigan State Constitution - Article I § 25

That is the law in Michigan.

[fj1200]

Equal Protection of the Laws...

"nor shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." — From Fourteenth Amendment

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." — Michigan State Constitution - Article I § 25

That is the law in Michigan.

You already tried that one. The Federal Constitution trumps the State especially when a State Constitution violates equal protection.

[tailfins]

You already tried that one. The Federal Constitution trumps the State especially when a State Constitution violates equal protection.

Only if you want to use sleight of hand to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which is exactly what corrupt courts have done.

[indago]

Only if you want to use sleight of hand to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which is exactly what corrupt courts have done.

Exactly! You don't see any alcohol check lanes in Michigan. Michigan Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional, although the federal supreme court said they weren't.

[fj1200]

Only if you want to use sleight of hand to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which is exactly what corrupt courts have done.

The Tenth? Dude, unfortunately nobody has taken the Tenth seriously in a hundred years. But if you want to go all Constitution then tell me where marriage is found in the Constitution.


Exactly! You don't see any alcohol check lanes in Michigan. Michigan Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional, although the federal supreme court said they weren't.

Do you ever fact what you post?


After reviewing the case, the Michigan State Supreme Court agreed with the drivers and ruled in their favor—but that changed once the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

...

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following this ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them.

So what does that mean for you? Well, if you are lucky enough to live in one of the states where roadblocks aren’t allowed (Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), you have nothing to worry about.
http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

You don't see check lanes in Michigan because Michigan chose not to allow them, it has nothing to do with the State Supreme Court finding them unconstitutional.

[indago]

Do you ever fact what you post?


http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

You don't see check lanes in Michigan because Michigan chose not to allow them, it has nothing to do with the State Supreme Court finding them unconstitutional.


The Michigan Supreme Court opinion declared: "Because there is no support in the constitutional history of Michigan for the proposition that the police may engage in warrantless and suspicionless seizures of automobiles for the purpose of enforcing the criminal law, we hold that sobriety checklanes violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution."

The opinion noted that "the federal and state constitution provisions that forbid unreasonable searches and seizures are nearly identical."

The Court noted that: "This Court has never recognized the right of the state, without any level of suspicion whatsoever, to detain members of the population at large for criminal investigatory purposes." Also, the "Court showed a marked hostility toward the use of a license check as a pretext to investigate criminal activity", and continued: "...it is not the genius of our system that the constitutional rights of persons shall depend for their efficacy upon legislative benevolence."

Now, looking at what the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in their opinion, I would say that they found the check lanes to be unconstitutional.

Maybe you should consider withdrawing from the discussion with your tail between your legs...

[fj1200]

Now, looking at what the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in their opinion, I would say that they found the check lanes to be unconstitutional.

Maybe you should consider withdrawing from the discussion with your tail between your legs...

:facepalm99: From your case:


Because the United States Supreme Court established that Michigan's sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the specific question presented in this case is whether sobriety checkpoints are unreasonable under art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution. Before addressing this issue, we must first address the more fundamental question, how we interpret the Michigan Constitution.
http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1993/93851-6.html

You should brush up on the supremacy clause rather than just stick your head in the sand.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[indago]

:facepalm99: From your case:


http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1993/93851-6.html

You should brush up on the supremacy clause rather than just stick your head in the sand.

Regardless, you won't find any alcohol checklanes in Michigan. They violate the Michigan Constitution, and are unconstitutional.

[fj1200]

Regardless, you won't find any alcohol checklanes in Michigan. They violate the Michigan Constitution, and are unconstitutional.

But you do acknowledge the supremacy clause right? For years the Alabama Constitution banned interracial marriage, long after the Loving decision, and was moot per Loving: Was Alabama's interracial marriage ban constitutional while it was still on the books post Loving?

[indago]

In the case of Sitz v Department of State Police, a case involving "sobriety checkpoints", it was noted that Governor Blanchard, in his State of the State Address of January 29, 1986, directed the Director of the Michigan Department of State Police to implement a sobriety checkpoint system in the State for the detection of "drunk drivers". "All motorists would be stopped upon reaching a checkpoint and would be examined for signs of intoxication." A "sobriety checkpoint" was established in Saginaw County on 17 May 1986 at 11:45 PM and continued, as noted in the report of the Michigan Court of Appeals, for over an hour. On 16 May 1986, an action was filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the use of these checkpoints on the basis that there was no probable cause to believe that the individual inhabitants of the State were committing a crime that would require a seizure of them and their automobile on the highway. The action was filed by Rick Sitz; Joseph F. Young, Sr.; Dominic J. Jacobetti; Dick Allen; Keith Muslow; and Jack Welborn. It was filed against Michigan Department of State Police and Gerald L. Hough, Director. It was reported that "Following a bench trial, the court, Michael L. Stacey, J., found that the checkpoints violated both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution and permanently enjoined their implementation." The case was appealed by the Director to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the lower court opinion was affirmed.


The Director then appealed his case to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan in 1989 and was denied leave to appeal. He then filed appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States, where the decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Michigan was reversed, remanding the case back to the Michigan Court of Appeals for appropriate action, which affirmed its earlier ruling. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, and the case was argued, and decided 14 September 1993. It was reported that "Sobriety checkpoints violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution."

[tailfins]

The Tenth? Dude, unfortunately nobody has taken the Tenth seriously in a hundred years.

That's part of the problem. What other parts of the Constitution are activists judges not taking seriously? You could say that activists judges are not taking the entire Constitution seriously.

[indago]

That's part of the problem. What other parts of the Constitution are activists judges not taking seriously? You could say that activists judges are not taking the entire Constitution seriously.

Along with the government toadies...

[fj1200]

In the case of Sitz...

You missed a couple of questions while your head was in the sand. :)


But you do acknowledge the supremacy clause right? For years the Alabama Constitution banned interracial marriage, long after the Loving decision, and was moot per Loving: Was Alabama's interracial marriage ban constitutional while it was still on the books post Loving?

[fj1200]

That's part of the problem. What other parts of the Constitution are activists judges not taking seriously? You could say that activists judges are not taking the entire Constitution seriously.

Too much of it. Where is marriage in the Constitution? The Federal one that is.

[indago]

You missed a couple of questions while your head was in the sand. :)

It was, according to the Alabama State Constitution. It was repealed by amendment in 2000

Point out, in Article Four of the Bill of Rights, where it is written "except for alcohol check lanes".


.

[fj1200]

It was, according to the Alabama State Constitution. It was repealed by amendment in 2000

Point out, in Article Four of the Bill of Rights, where it is written "except for alcohol check lanes".

That's where you're wrong and why you're also wrong about what the Michigan Constitution says, maybe, about gay marriage. The Alabama ban was clearly unconstitutional no matter what the AL constitution said after the Loving decision. Any attempt by the state to impose their ban would have been struck down.

And where does 4A say "except for alcohol lanes"? The 17th word.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So sayeth SCOTUS in re: Sitz. You, me, and the drunk dude in his car may not like it but there it is.

[indago]

That's where you're wrong...

Moot! Repealed 7 November 2000


And where does 4A say "except for alcohol lanes"? The 17th word.

So sayeth SCOTUS in re: Sitz. You, me, and the drunk dude in his car may not like it but there it is.

But that wasn't the intent of the alcohol check lanes, now was it! The alcohol check lanes stopped ALL vehicles, to see if they had committed a crime.


"unannounced investigatory seizures are, particularly when they take place at night, the hallmark of regimes far different from ours" — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens


http://tenpercent.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/papers1.jpeg?w=413&h=255


This Gestapo mentality was totally rejected, and rightly so, by the Michigan Supreme Court, as previously noted.

[indago]

GET OVER SAME-SEX FEELINGS


Journalists Suhasini Raj and Nida Najar wrote for The New York Times 13 January 2015:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government of Goa, on India’s western coast, is setting up a program to get young gay people to lead “a normal life,” according to the state’s minister for sports and youth affairs. ...The new policy treats gay youths as a problem group to be addressed with government action, along with drug addicts, dropouts, migrants and others. ...“They are that part of our society who have not yet experienced the true pleasures and bliss of life,” Mr. Tawadkar said. “What does a normal life feel like? Do they know? No.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/world/asia/indian-goa-program-counsel-gay-youths-to-become-straight.html?ref=todayspaper)



homosexuality was a “bad habit"

[fj1200]

Moot! Repealed 7 November 2000

Moot or not it shows you the failure of your reasoning.


But that wasn't the intent of the alcohol check lanes, now was it! The alcohol check lanes stopped ALL vehicles, to see if they had committed a crime.

"unannounced investigatory seizures are, particularly when they take place at night, the hallmark of regimes far different from ours" — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

This Gestapo mentality was totally rejected, and rightly so, by the Michigan Supreme Court, as previously noted.

Argue intent all you want; alcohol check lanes are Constitutional. And Michigan is well within their rights to not allow them as they are not compelled to require check lanes, only allow them if the state wishes. Besides, Stevens can say anything he likes, he was in the minority.

Just like the unfortunate Kelo decision, the State isn't required to sell property seized by eminent domain only that it is Constitutional. You know, the Federal one, the one that matters.

[fj1200]

Journalists Suhasini Raj and Nida Najar wrote for The New York Times 13 January 2015:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...“They are that part of our society who have not yet experienced the true pleasures and bliss of life,” ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have they started a government program to buy hookers for gay kids? Also this seems to be some sort of gestapo mentality that you would be against.


...The new policy treats gay youths as a problem group to be addressed with government action, along with drug addicts, dropouts, migrants and others. ...

Curious.

[indago]

Argue intent all you want; alcohol check lanes are Constitutional. And Michigan is well within their rights to not allow them as they are not compelled to require check lanes, only allow them if the state wishes.

Not allowed!

From Michigan Supreme Court Opinion
Because the United States Supreme Court established that Michigan's sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the specific question presented in this case is whether sobriety checkpoints are unreasonable under art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution. Before addressing this issue, we must first address the more fundamental question, how we interpret the Michigan Constitution.

And, as previously noted, the Michigan Supreme Court declared: "we hold that sobriety checklanes violate art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution."

State Checkpoints...Conducted?.....Frequency....Legality

Michigan...................No..................... ............Illegal under state Constitution

ILLEGAL (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html)

[aboutime]

Not allowed!

From Michigan Supreme Court Opinion

And, as previously noted, the Michigan Supreme Court declared: "we hold that sobriety checklanes violate art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution."

State Checkpoints...Conducted?.....Frequency....Legality

Michigan...................No..................... ............Illegal under state Constitution

ILLEGAL (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html)


indago. So, it sounds like you'd prefer to just look the other way, and hope not to get into any accidents with DUI candidates? Or....are you, by any chance. One of those people who DRINK, then DRIVE, and always try to avoid those checklanes to avoid being caught?
Which would you prefer?

[tailfins]

indago. So, it sounds like you'd prefer to just look the other way, and hope not to get into any accidents with DUI candidates? Or....are you, by any chance. One of those people who DRINK, then DRIVE, and always try to avoid those checklanes to avoid being caught?
Which would you prefer?

"Sobriety checkpoint" is a canard. They are ticket factories and shakedown sites. I prefer to look the other way for someone having a burnt out tail light or for someone who forgot to buckle their seat belt.

[aboutime]

"Sobriety checkpoint" is a canard. They are ticket factories and shakedown sites. I prefer to look the other way for someone having a burnt out tail light or for someone who forgot to buckle their seat belt.



Call it whatever you like. And you, like others seem to prefer taking your chances with your own life, and the lives of your family by just looking the other way? Hope you don't look away too quickly, and meet one of those ticket factory victims you defend..as the DUI, or DRUNK who kills somebody you know, or love.
Of course. DRUNKS have a right to be on the road WITH YOU. Don't they?

[fj1200]

Not allowed!

Dude, chill out. I stated precisely that...


... alcohol check lanes are Constitutional. And Michigan is well within their rights to not allow them as they are not compelled to require check lanes, only allow them if the state wishes.

... but you're missing the point.

[indago]

only allow them if the state wishes

The State of Michigan cannot wish an allowance for alcohol check lanes into being. They are ILLEGAL in the State of Michigan.

[fj1200]

The State of Michigan cannot wish an allowance for alcohol check lanes into being. They are ILLEGAL in the State of Michigan.

Regarding amending the Constitution in the State of Michigan.


Article XII: Amendment and RevisionArticle XII establishes the rules by which the constitution can be amended. Several methods can be employed to propose and ratify amendments. Section 1 allows amendment by proposal of the legislature, and ratification by popular vote. Section 2, however, allows the electorate to propose amendments by petition, and ratification by popular vote.
Section 3 establishes the precedent that, starting with 1978 and every 16th year thereafter, the electors of the state will be asked whether the constitution shall be revised. If a majority of the popular vote finds this to be the case, there will be a constitutional convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Michigan#Article_XII:_Amendment_an d_Revision

The process isn't that hard at the state level.

[indago]

Regarding amending the Constitution in the State of Michigan.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Michigan#Article_XII:_Amendment_an d_Revision

The process isn't that hard at the state level.

And wishful thinking is certainly not one of the alternatives.

[indago]

Journalist Mark Sherman wrote for The Associated Press 17 January 2015:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The justices agreed Friday to decide a major civil rights question: whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution. The court will take up gay-rights cases that ask it to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-17-03-29-36)

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." — Michigan State Constitution - Article I § 25

I don't see anything there which says that Gays are banned from getting married.

[fj1200]

And wishful thinking is certainly not one of the alternatives.

Neither is bringing up topics and cases irrelevant to the issue but that doesn't stop you. States aren't compelled to introduce alcohol check lanes but they will be compelled to grant equal protection.


I don't see anything there which says that Gays are banned from getting married.

:facepalm99:

[tailfins]

Neither is bringing up topics and cases irrelevant to the issue but that doesn't stop you. States aren't compelled to introduce alcohol check lanes but they will be compelled to grant equal protection.



:facepalm99:

That's where the scam comes in: Defining equal protection. We did fine for over two centuries without homosexual marriage. I can remember when there were anti-sodomy laws that were actually enforced.

[indago]

Journalist Adam Liptak wrote for The New York Times 17 January 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first page of a petition seeking Supreme Court review is the most important. It sets out the “question presented,” the one the court will answer if it takes the case. The justices do not ordinarily tinker with the wording of those questions. But on Friday something unusual happened: In agreeing to hear four same-sex marriage cases, the court framed for itself the issues it would address. ...Some saw an attempt by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to elicit a ruling that would stop short of establishing a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The court’s first question: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

The second: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?ref=todayspaper)

If marriage is a right, then why would the participants require permission from the State to exercise this right? If permission must be granted by the State, then it is not a right, it is but a privilege granted by the State.

[fj1200]

That's where the scam comes in: Defining equal protection. We did fine for over two centuries without homosexual marriage. I can remember when there were anti-sodomy laws that were actually enforced.

Were those sodomy laws enforced equally? Unlikely. Equal protection is not a scam it's citizens being protected, and treated, equally. Take marriage off the books and there isn't anybody being treated unequally.

[fj1200]

If marriage is a right, then why would the participants require permission from the State to exercise this right? If permission must be granted by the State, then it is not a right, it is but a privilege granted by the State.

Exactly, which is why privileges granted by the state need to be granted equally.

[indago]

Neither is bringing up topics and cases irrelevant to the issue...

But the point that was made was not "irrelevant to the issue".

[indago]

Exactly, which is why privileges granted by the state need to be granted equally.

According to the laws of the particular State!

[fj1200]

But the point that was made was not "irrelevant to the issue".

Incorrect. You just can't ignore the part of the post that shows you to be wrong.


According to the laws of the particular State!

Not if in violation of the US Constitution... you know, the one that matters... which is the question at hand as much as you'd like to ignore it. (see above)

[indago]

Incorrect. You just can't ignore the part of the post that shows you to be wrong.

Hallucinating again...




Not if in violation of the US Constitution... you know, the one that matters... which is the question at hand as much as you'd like to ignore it. (see above)

I didn't!

[fj1200]

Hallucinating again...

I didn't!

:facepalm99:

[indago]

From The Associated Press 24 January 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas lawmaker would strip the salaries from government officials who honor same-sex marriage licenses. Other states would protect government officials who opt out of performing gay nuptials. In Georgia, where lawmakers are considering a bill that critics fear could allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers, the former head of the country's largest Protestant denomination recently urged lawmakers to rein in "erotic liberty."

...In Georgia, the debate flared this month when Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed fired the city's fire chief after learning the chief self-published a book describing homosexuality as a perversion.
------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_RIGHTS_STATES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-24-14-58-20)

[indago]

Journalist Kimberlee Kruesi wrote for The Associated Press 27 January 2015:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Brian Thom stood quietly in front of Idaho lawmakers, hastily collecting his thoughts on how to respond to the question he had just been handed in front of religious freedom supporters and hundreds of gay rights advocates.

"Can you tell me where gay people come from?" asked Democratic Rep. John McCrostie of Boise — currently Idaho's only openly gay state lawmaker...

..."If you are gay, sir, then I believe God made you that way," said Thom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_RIGHTS_IDAHO_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-27-02-26-12)

Shows just how uninformed these participants in the discussion are. Or, they are putting on their Dog'nPony Show, and engaging in a subterfuge in the process.

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." — Leviticus 20 v 13 - The Bible

[fj1200]

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." — Leviticus 20 v 13 - The Bible

I hope you don't eat pork.

[indago]

I hope you don't eat pork.

Mmmm! I just LUV dem fat, juicy, bone-in pork chops. Yummo!

[aboutime]

How bout this for a remedy to the Gay problems everyone seems to get so upset, and uptight about?

How bout we just tell them to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS, and WE WILL MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS?

And, how bout, we convince members of the Gay, and Lesbian community to SHUT UP, and stop trying to jam whatever their Lifestyle is, or may be, down everyone's throats, day after day, week after week, and year after year.

Personally. I don't care what any GAY person says, does, thinks, or believes. Just like THEY don't care what I say, do, think, or believe.

Leave Me alone, and I will leave all of you alone. Nothing anyone says is going to change you.

So....Either SHUT UP, or GO AWAY. "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!"

[fj1200]

Mmmm! I just LUV dem fat, juicy, bone-in pork chops. Yummo!

It is unclean. You should repent.

[indago]

It is unclean. You should repent.

Why would I want to do that?

[fj1200]

Why would I want to do that?

Your G-d demands it.

[indago]

Your G-d demands it.

Your Strawman has nothing to do with the incident in Idaho.

[fj1200]

Your Strawman has nothing to do with the incident in Idaho.

Strawman? :laugh: You're the one who brought up Leviticus and then admitted to your sinful nature. Besides, I've heard our government is not a theocracy and not required to follow Christian values. :dunno:

[indago]

Strawman? :laugh: You're the one who brought up Leviticus and then admitted to your sinful nature. Besides, I've heard our government is not a theocracy and not required to follow Christian values. :dunno:

You are obviously denying the fact that "Bishop Brian Thom" brought "God" into the picture, not me. And, in doing so, the Bible is a source of material to be referenced. Also, note that "Bishop Brian Thom" is a "Bishop".


I explain these things to you because it is quite obvious that you have a reading comprehension problem.

[fj1200]

You are obviously denying the fact that "Bishop Brian Thom" brought "God" into the picture, not me. And, in doing so, the Bible is a source of material to be referenced. Also, note that "Bishop Brian Thom" is a "Bishop".


I explain these things to you because it is quite obvious that you have a reading comprehension problem.

You might want to try explaining to yourself how you're the one who brought up Leviticus. I merely referenced your sin according the book of Leviticus.

Of course you could also try actually debating instead of playing petty games... but I know that you weren't doing so well debating either... :shrug:

[aboutime]

Your G-d demands it.


fj. You are just like Obama. You haven't got the BALLS to actually spell the entire word GOD. But in your case, I believe it means G Damned. Very appropriate IMO.

[indago]

You might want to try explaining to yourself how you're the one who brought up Leviticus. I merely referenced your sin according the book of Leviticus.

Of course you could also try actually debating instead of playing petty games... but I know that you weren't doing so well debating either... :shrug:

And why am I not surprised that you still don't get it...

[fj1200]

And why am I not surprised that you still don't get it...

Trust me, I get it. You stepped in it and are now trying to clean off your shoes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Journalist Kimberlee Kruesi wrote for The Associated Press 27 January 2015:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Brian Thom stood quietly in front of Idaho lawmakers, hastily collecting his thoughts on how to respond to the question he had just been handed in front of religious freedom supporters and hundreds of gay rights advocates.

"Can you tell me where gay people come from?" asked Democratic Rep. John McCrostie of Boise — currently Idaho's only openly gay state lawmaker...

..."If you are gay, sir, then I believe God made you that way," said Thom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_RIGHTS_IDAHO_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-27-02-26-12)

Shows just how uninformed these participants in the discussion are. Or, they are putting on their Dog'nPony Show, and engaging in a subterfuge in the process.

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." — Leviticus 20 v 13 - The Bible


..."If you are gay, sir, then I believe God made you that way," said Thom

^^ Complete and utter stupidity! What rot!
If you are a child molester --God made you that way.
If you are a rapist-- God made you that way.
If you are a murderer --God made you that way.--:rolleyes:

And this idiot THOM is supposed to be a bishop!! I ask in what church? Satan's?
Homosexuality is perversion and a sin--the bible makes that absolutely clear!
What church allows such a BISHOP???

And the media is ALL-PRO-GAY, that is until its time to confront the muslims on their Koran commanding queers be put to death.
Then suddenly these "supposed examples of virtue and enlightenment" go absolutely silent!!!
Yet again proving they have zero honor and no decent morals.

Gays be damned. We have much bigger problems than giving special rights to damn perverts!!!!
Like the fact our nation is under the control of a( muslim in hiding) traitor that is hell-bent on destroying as much of it as he can!
Or Iran getting nukes, Russia remerging into a clone of its former Soviet strategies, ISIS, Syria, China seeking to take territories--ALL because Obama signals he is weak against everything except fighting true Americans and destroying this nation's might and power!

To hell with the damn gay perverts.. Anybody that says, thinks and proclaims that they are not ffing sexual perverts can just kiss my ass!!!--Tyr

[fj1200]

^^ Complete and utter stupidity! What rot!
If you are a child molester --God made you that way.
If you are a rapist-- God made you that way.
If you are a murderer --God made you that way.--:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Those are crimes. Anything rational to add?

[indago]

:rolleyes: Those are crimes. Anything rational to add?

I see you're out to lunch... AGAIN

[fj1200]

I see you're out to lunch... AGAIN

It's amazing how I can still spot flaws in logic and argument presented here while being "out to lunch." You guys should try making coherent arguments rather than non-sensical rants. :)

[aboutime]

It's amazing how I can still spot flaws in logic and argument presented here while being "out to lunch." You guys should try making coherent arguments rather than non-sensical rants. :)


Once again, as shown above. fj shows how jealousy drives his hatred for people who Emulate him.

[indago]

Journalist David Eggert wrote for The Associated Press 4 February 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan will recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages that were quickly performed in the hours before an appeals court blocked a ruling legalizing the unions, Gov. Rick Snyder announced Wednesday.

The Republican said he wouldn't appeal a federal court's ruling last month that required the state to recognize the marriages performed on March 22, 2014. His decision means the ruling takes effect Thursday and could have an impact on the couples' health insurance coverage, their ability to jointly adopt children and other state benefits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_MICHIGAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-04-17-53-50)


Yup! It's about the bennies...

[fj1200]

It's about the bennies...

You're willing to give up yours then?

[Drummond]

:rolleyes: Those are crimes. Anything rational to add?

There's that 'little' matter of free will (.. perhaps you'd forgotten ?).

The freedom to do right. The freedom to do wrong. To sin.

But if you argue that 'God made sinners the way they are, therefore, God made it all happen', you're 'rationally' arguing that God holds ultimate responsibility for all sins committed.

... BUT ... if that's so, where does free will come into it ? To argue the 'God made them that way' is to defy any acceptance of free will taking any part in any of it. And ... THAT JUST ISN'T TRUE.

FJ, you may not understand the concept. Nonetheless, it's a fact .. INDIVIDUALS take responsibility for their individual acts. They hold culpability for them. One cannot perpetually excuse that which is patently wrong.

[fj1200]

There's that 'little' matter of free will (.. perhaps you'd forgotten ?).

The freedom to do right. The freedom to do wrong. To sin.

But if you argue that 'God made sinners the way they are, therefore, God made it all happen', you're 'rationally' arguing that God holds ultimate responsibility for all sins committed.

... BUT ... if that's so, where does free will come into it ? To argue the 'God made them that way' is to defy any acceptance of free will taking any part in any of it. And ... THAT JUST ISN'T TRUE.

FJ, you may not understand the concept. Nonetheless, it's a fact .. INDIVIDUALS take responsibility for their individual acts. They hold culpability for them. One cannot perpetually excuse that which is patently wrong.

You miss the point. Only a fool brings up crimes when discussing non-criminal behavior. It's a cover for the lack of an argument I suppose.

Nevertheless I reject the sin argument. A. I don't accept it as sinful behavior, and B. Biblical sin is not a reason for secular legislation.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You miss the point. Only a fool brings up crimes when discussing non-criminal behavior. It's a cover for the lack of an argument I suppose.

Nevertheless I reject the sin argument. A. I don't accept it as sinful behavior, and B. Biblical sin is not a reason for secular legislation.

No, you missed the ffing point. In that quote, I applied your ffing logic as it should be applied to make adman point. One you pretended not see , for if you truly didn't see that point then you are as dense a piece of lead..
I reject the old excuse--lie-- that God made them that way..
What utter rot!
God condemns homosexuality but he makes certain humans that way! Idiotic lying dribble and the fools that use it and attempt to justify the perversion and sick sexual acts made by deviants!
Damn sex perverts have now got majority support from the stinking libs/ dems and leftists and seek to have it be declared by ALL as normal behavior.
Hell with all that ffing liberal nonsense , its a damn sexual perversion and the original laws against it were right and just!
Islam commands putting them to death--all of them yet you your lib buddies ignore that while you kiss muslim ass to beat the band!
What damn hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Tyr

[fj1200]

No, you missed the ffing point. In that quote, I applied your ffing logic...
:blah:

You didn't apply any logic at all.

I like blondes --God made me that way
I like smart women --God made me that way
I like women that look good in yoga pants --God made me that way

If God didn't make me that way, who did?

And nice Muzzy-lefty-rant. You forgot to include the globalists... or was that implied?

[indago]

Journalist Karel Janicek wrote for The Associated Press 6 February 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A big billboard of Pope Francis hangs over the center of Slovakia's capital, urging citizens to vote "Yes" in a referendum on restricting gay rights.

The vote this weekend in this predominantly Roman Catholic nation — which follows a similar one that succeeded in Croatia in 2013 — points to a cultural divide within the European Union in which more established western members are rapidly granting new rights to gays, while eastern newcomers entrench conservative attitudes toward LGBT people. ...In Saturday's vote, Slovaks will be asked whether they agree to three points: that marriage can only be called a union between man and woman; that same-sex partners must be barred from adopting children; and that it's up to parents to decide whether their children receive sex education. While the constitution already defines marriage as between man and woman, the campaigners decided it was important to include the question in the referendum to reinforce traditional family values.

...Anna Veresova, a leader of the alliance, called moves to redefine marriage and family in western Europe and the United States "nonsensical."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SLOVAKIA_GAY_RIGHTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-06-06-54-16)

[Drummond]

You didn't apply any logic at all.

I like blondes --God made me that way
I like smart women --God made me that way
I like women that look good in yoga pants --God made me that way

If God didn't make me that way, who did?

And nice Muzzy-lefty-rant. You forgot to include the globalists... or was that implied?

Correction: Tyr didn't apply logic that you cared to recognise. [You had your Leftie agenda to follow, after all.]

My thanks to Tyr for providing an answer that made my own redundant. The simple truth, FJ, is that you reject Tyr's arguments purely as an act of will. Tyr's argument is sound. What's your response ? A jibe or two, and an abusive edited representation of Tyr's own post.

In other words ... your usual tricks, employed whenever you're bested.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Correction: Tyr didn't apply logic that you cared to recognise. [You had your Leftie agenda to follow, after all.]

My thanks to Tyr for providing an answer that made my own redundant. The simple truth, FJ, is that you reject Tyr's arguments purely as an act of will. Tyr's argument is sound. What's your response ? A jibe or two, and an abusive edited representation of Tyr's own post.

In other words ... your usual tricks, employed whenever you're bested.

He knew he was bested and lobbed out that silly response.
That is, unless he was confessing his own sins.. :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

[indago]

In a letter to The Editor, The New York Times, 10 February 2015, Joel Conarroe wrote:

"Gay rights have progressed with lightning speed... In the prophetic words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.""

letter (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/opinion/lightning-speed-the-progress-on-gay-rights.html?ref=todayspaper)

What "justice"? Would that be the "justice" of the scourge of legitimization of homosexuality, forced upon a sinning nation? And what is so right about being gay? And where is the morality in perversity?


"I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary." — Chief Justice John Marshall

[fj1200]

Correction: Tyr didn't apply logic that you cared to recognise. [You had your Leftie agenda to follow, after all.]

My thanks to Tyr for providing an answer that made my own redundant. The simple truth, FJ, is that you reject Tyr's arguments purely as an act of will. Tyr's argument is sound. What's your response ? A jibe or two, and an abusive edited representation of Tyr's own post.

In other words ... your usual tricks, employed whenever you're bested.

Correct: I don't recognize utterly stupid logic which is what ye and he have offered. I notice you had to circle the wagons rather than address my post. That's what you do best though; Prattle and whine when you can't admit you're wrong... which is oh so often.


He knew he was bested and lobbed out that silly response.
That is, unless he was confessing his own sins.. :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

Uh huh. I expect you'll slink away since you have nothing more than another rant to offer.

[fj1200]

In a letter to The Editor, The New York Times, 10 February 2015, Joel Conarroe wrote:

"Gay rights have progressed ..."

What rights are those?

[indago]

What rights are those?

Ask Joel Conarroe!

[fj1200]

Ask Joel Conarroe!

Why do you post things you're not willing to comment on?

[aboutime]

Ask Joel Conarroe!


BS. Gays have always had the same rights according to the U.S.Constitution, as every other citizen.

Only when Gays began demanding that everyone else (citizens) accept their way of life by exiting the CLOSETS of the World, did anyone have any idea who they were. And, when Gays began to DEMAND that I, and EVERYONE else MUST accept them...by constantly whining about not being accepted. GAYS opened the doors to expose themselves, much like Alcoholics who pretended they weren't DRUNKS.

Truth is. NOBODY needs to know what GAYS or LESBIANS do in the privacy of their own homes. So claiming they are getting their rights, is nothing more than trumped-up BS.

[Drummond]

He knew he was bested and lobbed out that silly response.
That is, unless he was confessing his own sins.. :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::mm:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Correct: I don't recognize utterly stupid logic which is what ye and he have offered. I notice you had to circle the wagons rather than address my post. That's what you do best though; Prattle and whine when you can't admit you're wrong... which is oh so often.



Uh huh. I expect you'll slink away since you have nothing more than another rant to offer.

No Hoss, it is you that run away by dismissing my words as merely rants. When those words hit you the hardest you come off with this old standby-- that I rant..
Passionately held beliefs may or may not be ranting. According to you when those beliefs counter your own they are always just ranting.
It is a cop out and you know it. Gays are sex perverts , just that damn simple and neither you nor any other force in the freaking Universe can change that easy to see/understand fact.
I do not care if a billion idiots say it is not true, that truth remains.. --Tyr

[Drummond]

Correct: I don't recognize utterly stupid logic which is what ye and he have offered. I notice you had to circle the wagons rather than address my post. That's what you do best though; Prattle and whine when you can't admit you're wrong... which is oh so often.



Uh huh. I expect you'll slink away since you have nothing more than another rant to offer.

This is yet another of those 'I have nothing of substance to say to progress the debate, so I'll just denigrate my opposition instead' sort of posts.

Conservatives here get so many of these from you, eh, FJ ?

Earn respect for your views by defending them on their merits. If they have NO merit, why not concede that ? It'd be the honest thing to do.

[Perianne]

No Hoss, it is you that run away by dismissing my words as merely rants. When those words hit you the hardest you come off with this old standby-- that I rant..
Passionately held beliefs may or may not be ranting. According to you when those beliefs counter your own they are always just ranting.
It is a cop out and you know it. Gays are sex perverts , just that damn simple and neither you nor any other force in the freaking Universe can change that easy to see/understand fact.
I do not care if a billion idiots say it is not true, that truth remains.. --Tyr

Tyr-rant. hahahahaha. I make me laugh.

[indago]

Why do you post things you're not willing to comment on?

I commented on it. But then, I have already noted that you do have a reading comprehension problem.

[fj1200]

I commented on it. But then, I have already noted that you do have a reading comprehension problem.

Please point out where you answered my question then. :)

[fj1200]

No Hoss, it is you that run away by dismissing my words as merely rants. When those words hit you the hardest you come off with this old standby-- that I rant..
Passionately held beliefs may or may not be ranting. According to you when those beliefs counter your own they are always just ranting.
It is a cop out and you know it. Gays are sex perverts , just that damn simple and neither you nor any other force in the freaking Universe can change that easy to see/understand fact.
I do not care if a billion idiots say it is not true, that truth remains.. --Tyr

They are rants. Every time you avoid the topic and start prattling away about BO and the Muslims and the globalists and all your other boogeymen of the day it proves my point. I can't change your beliefs and I don't particularly care that they don't match mine but debating the points can be done without ranting; you should try it some time.

Per your previous post, if you're going to compare gay behavior with criminal behavior then I'm going to point out that our laws aren't based on the bible's definition of sin. In fact of the ten commandments only three are actually illegal. You could at least be honest in how you debate the subject. :)

[fj1200]

This is yet another of those 'I have nothing of substance to say to progress the debate, so I'll just denigrate my opposition instead' sort of posts.

Conservatives here get so many of these from you, eh, FJ ?

Earn respect for your views by defending them on their merits. If they have NO merit, why not concede that ? It'd be the honest thing to do.

No, that was another of those 'you had nothing of substance to progress the debate so I'm going to call you an idiot because you're an idiot' sort of posts. Now, I already responded to a previous post of yours and you've prattled and whined while not addressing that post because you have nothing of substance to offer and now can only try and claim the conservative mantle of which you are unworthy. You don't know what the word means.

FWIW I'm the only one defending my views on the merits as others only see fit to rant and/or whine and/or prattle and avoid discussing the tough questions. So, are you going to try and keep up with the discussion or are you going to run away... again.

[indago]

Please point out where you answered my question then. :)

I don't see anything anywhere about answering any questions. You wrote: "Why do you post things you're not willing to comment on?" I commented on it. And, as I had already noted, your reading comprehension problem is obvious.



.

[aboutime]

fj obviously believes he is COOL HAND LUKE. Constantly presenting proof to all of us, about his

inability, and "Failure to Communicate". But we all know. fj is never at a loss for words while talking to himself.

[indago]

Journalist David Eggert wrote for The Associated Press 4 February 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan will recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages that were quickly performed in the hours before an appeals court blocked a ruling legalizing the unions, Gov. Rick Snyder announced Wednesday.

The Republican said he wouldn't appeal a federal court's ruling last month that required the state to recognize the marriages performed on March 22, 2014. His decision means the ruling takes effect Thursday and could have an impact on the couples' health insurance coverage, their ability to jointly adopt children and other state benefits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_MICHIGAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-04-17-53-50)


Yup! It's about the bennies...

Why should MY tax dollars go toward the legitimization, encouragement, and proliferation of homosexuality?

[fj1200]

I don't see anything anywhere about answering any questions. You wrote: "Why do you post things you're not willing to comment on?" I commented on it. And, as I had already noted, your reading comprehension problem is obvious.

Half of what you quoted dealt with gay rights and now you can't be bothered to discuss it. It's probably better that way since you have nothing intelligent to add.


Why should MY tax dollars go toward the legitimization, encouragement, and proliferation of homosexuality?

Why should tax dollars benefit you over someone else?

[indago]

Half of what you quoted dealt with gay rights and now you can't be bothered to discuss it. It's probably better that way since you have nothing intelligent to add.

The "gay rights" that was mentioned were from the words of Joel Conarroe. I have already noted that, and noted that if you want to find out more about what he was talking about you would be better served by discussing it with him. Now, I have already commented about your reading comprehension problem, but your compounding of your problem is affecting your credibility.



.

[fj1200]

The "gay rights" that was mentioned were from the words of Joel Conarroe. I have already noted that, and noted that if you want to find out more about what he was talking about you would be better served by discussing it with him. Now, I have already commented about your reading comprehension problem, but your compounding of your problem is affecting your credibility.

It's been suggested to me that the best way to debate is to actually debate; You should give it a try, it's kind of fun. If you're unable to comment on what you post you should just not post. But if you can get Mr. Conarroe to post here then that would be great, presumably he's far better at communicating than you. :)

[indago]

It's been suggested to me that the best way to debate is to actually debate; You should give it a try, it's kind of fun. If you're unable to comment on what you post you should just not post. But if you can get Mr. Conarroe to post here then that would be great, presumably he's far better at communicating than you. :)

He certainly wouldn't come here on your account, considering the fact that you have such a serious reading comprehension problem...

[fj1200]

:blah:

You're on a debate site dude.

[indago]

You're on a debate site dude.

So...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So...

Now you have got the flavor of fj's game.
Just throw more of that "soul of wit " right back at him......Its delicious to see.. :clap:--Tyr

[fj1200]

So...


Now you have got the flavor of fj's game.
Just throw more of that "soul of wit " right back at him......Its delicious to see.. :clap:--Tyr

Birds of a feather flock together run away from debating the tough questions. :dunno:

[indago]

Birds of a feather flock together run away from debating the tough questions. :dunno:

"run away"???

What's with this "run away" stuff???

[fj1200]

The Jews and the Law

17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God;18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.
.

[indago]

The Jews and the Law

You should use a heavier gauge tinfoil...

[fj1200]

You should use a heavier gauge tinfoil...

Um... :confused:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is yet another of those 'I have nothing of substance to say to progress the debate, so I'll just denigrate my opposition instead' sort of posts.

Conservatives here get so many of these from you, eh, FJ ?

Earn respect for your views by defending them on their merits. If they have NO merit, why not concede that ? It'd be the honest thing to do.


Enjoy you break my friend.
" Drat, curse these infernal mosquitoes.
Always buzzing around here and making a nuisance of themselves!"--:laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

^With any luck he's taken some debate lessons. Though I'll be happy to continue with my tutoring him. :)

[aboutime]

^With any luck he's taken some debate lessons. Though I'll be happy to continue with my tutoring him. :)


First. YOU, fj, need to get a huge mirror. And then, with any luck. You can tutor yourself until the cows come home while impressing YOU, and ONLY YOU.

[indago]

Journalist Julie Turkewitz wrote for The New York Times 21 February 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradition reigns here on the Navajo reservation, where the words of elders are treated as gospel and many people still live or pray in circular dwellings called hogans. The national debate over gay marriage, however, is prompting some Navajos to re-examine a 2005 tribal law called the Dine Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex unions on the reservation.

...“It’s not for us,” Otto Tso, a Navajo legislator and medicine man from the western edge of the reservation, said of gay marriage. “We have to look at our culture, our society, where we come from, talk to our elders.” ...At a beauty salon in Chinle, Ariz., about 100 miles from Mr. Nelson’s home in Tohatchi, Jaye BTode, 55, dipped a client’s long tresses into the wash basin as she considered the issue. ...“That’s not for us,” Ms. BTode said of gay marriage. “No, no, no, no.”

Her client, Julie Begaye, 54, lifted her head out of the sink, shaking her wet locks. “That’s not our tradition,” she said. “If you want to do that, get off the reservation and do that somewhere else.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/among-the-navajos-a-renewed-debate-about-gay-marriage.html?ref=todayspaper)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Journalist Julie Turkewitz wrote for The New York Times 21 February 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradition reigns here on the Navajo reservation, where the words of elders are treated as gospel and many people still live or pray in circular dwellings called hogans. The national debate over gay marriage, however, is prompting some Navajos to re-examine a 2005 tribal law called the Dine Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex unions on the reservation.

...“It’s not for us,” Otto Tso, a Navajo legislator and medicine man from the western edge of the reservation, said of gay marriage. “We have to look at our culture, our society, where we come from, talk to our elders.” ...At a beauty salon in Chinle, Ariz., about 100 miles from Mr. Nelson’s home in Tohatchi, Jaye BTode, 55, dipped a client’s long tresses into the wash basin as she considered the issue. ...“That’s not for us,” Ms. BTode said of gay marriage. “No, no, no, no.”

Her client, Julie Begaye, 54, lifted her head out of the sink, shaking her wet locks. “That’s not our tradition,” she said. “If you want to do that, get off the reservation and do that somewhere else.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/among-the-navajos-a-renewed-debate-about-gay-marriage.html?ref=todayspaper)


Her client, Julie Begaye, 54, lifted her head out of the sink, shaking her wet locks. “That’s not our tradition,” she said. “If you want to do that, get off the reservation and do that somewhere else.”

^^^^^^^ Exactly what should have been told to the Obama long ago!!!!!!
Get your sorry , treasonous ass out!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:--Tyr

[fj1200]

^He should ignore the Constitution? I thought you got all ticked off when he did that. :unsure:
... and what exactly has BO done?

[indago]

Journalist David Crary wrote for The Associated Press 25 February 2015:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A unique federally funded study offers a detailed look at the lives of gay, lesbian and transgender youth in New York City who cope with homelessness and poverty by engaging in what the researchers call "survival sex." In extensive interviews conducted over three years by the Urban Institute, 283 young people spoke about experiencing family rejection, establishing support networks with groups of their peers, and learning how to subsist on earnings from sexual encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LGBT_YOUTH_SEX_TRADE_STUDY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-25-00-14-57)


They all ought to get married together and suck up government benefits. After all...

IT'S ABOUT THE BENNIES

[indago]

From CNN 4 March 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------
...Carson also said he believes the issue of allowing or restricting same-sex marriage should be decided on the state level, rather than by federal courts — even as the Supreme Court prepares to take up a case this spring that could legalize gay marriage nationwide.
----------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ben-carson-prisons-gay-choice/)

The various States have their varying customs: some exclude homosexuals from marriage, and some do not. The Supreme Court has been asked to declare a OneSizeFitsAll solution to the problem. With that same premise, there are various and sundry religions practiced within the several States, some at odds with each other. The Supremes could issue forth a declaration that a OneSizeFitsAll solution would be that there will be a National Religion. Then, they would have to choose one. Maybe Catholicism! In all of the States, Catholicism would be the one National Religion, and then laws would have to be enacted to enforce this, with Pains'nPenalties attached.

[fj1200]

^That was nonsensical. Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government has nothing to do with religion.

[indago]

^That was nonsensical.

What was "nonsensical" about it?

[fj1200]

What was "nonsensical" about it?

A shorter list would be what was sensical. Religion has nothing to do with the issue. In a perfect world the states could determine their own rules but once the Federal government steps in then it's a completely different story.

[Gunny]

The main problem with democracy is that it allows for tyranny by majority.



The main problem with the progressive left is the belief in tyranny of the minority.

[indago]

^That was nonsensical. Marriage in the US as defined by the Federal Government has nothing to do with religion.

Realising that you are infected with RCD and ADD (that would be Reading Comprehension Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder), I will explain the posting for you, and other LoInfo folks:

You see, the subject of the posting isn't religion, or homosexuals. It is the OneSizeFitsAll solution. Homosexual marriage, and religion were used as analogies for the purpose of inflicting the OneSizeFitsAll solution upon the States. It was pointed out that with the Supreme Court being asked to arrive at a solution to the controversies concerning homosexuals marrying, and not being recognized in some of the States, they will arrive at a OneSizeFitsAll solution for all of the States, whether they like it or not.

And, furthering this analogy, and using the various religions that are practised in the States, being:

• snake handling religions

• those who won't call a doctor for their children when they are sick

• those religions that practise polygamy

• those that use hallucinogens (peyote, etc.)

• Islamic religion that uses Sharia Law

• Catholicism

etc.

There may come a time when there is such a conflict between these religions within the States that the Supreme Court will be asked to arrive at a solution to the problem, and they inflict the OneSizeFitsAll solution upon the States, being just one religion practised, and Catholicism was the choice noted.