However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 Read more: NewsCenter 25 2,351

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Read more

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2357 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's the truth...you know...truth??? Ever bring up the truth before?? I doubt it....
"Grass is green" is also true but equally irrelevant to the topic of civil marriage.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2358 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability to procreate together is the issue, not whether or not they do so....man/woman procreate together...man/man...NOT!
The ability or desire to procreate is not a requirement for marriage in any state. So it's most certainly NOT an issue of any relevance to legal recognition of one's marriage. It's only an issue to bigots like you who want to stick your nose into other people's bedrooms.
Get That Fool wrote:
What 'unnatural' sex are they having??? Sexual contact between husband and wife is also a benefit of marriage, whether a child is produced or not...

Ummmmm...I'm not seeing the corrolation between o/s coupling (natural) and the unnatural coupling of homosexuals.....they are two separate things...
Same sex coupling is perfectly natural for homosexuals. The world isn't defined nor subject to what you or other heterosexuals deem "natural".
Get That Fool wrote:
Sorry, your 'loaded' question doesn't pertain to me....
Of course it does. You just lack the spine to answer it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2359 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not...I already know what they say..."YOU" are the one that asked for them...
Like you claimed to know what the epi-genetics study said and then proved in multiple posts you had no f-ing clue what you were talking about.
Get That Fool wrote:
You wanted a site...you got one...do you not even understand what you put in posts anymore???
Unfortunately for you, he does. Your citation didn't meet his specified criteria. That you think otherwise is irrelevant.
Get That Fool wrote:
Then if you think it calls for more studies...how can you say 'your' studies are correct???
Define 'disparate'. You think because they didn't die in their sleep that they weren't negatively effected by their parents choices??? Of course they were!
Then we must conclude your children and grandchildren are negatively affected by your bigotry as well.
Get That Fool wrote:
I don't consider the APA 'respectable' on this issue at all...in fact, they are currently working on removing 'pedophilia' as a disorder (just like they did homosexuality)....if 'you' think they are working for the kids...you need to take a closer look...
Just another of your usual lies. You really need to stop getting your information from hate group web sites.

"The final diagnostic criteria for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has been approved by the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)."

"Pedophilic disorder criteria will remain unchanged from DSM-4, but the disorder name will be revised from "pedophilia" to "pedophilic disorder."

link: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775496

A name change doesn't qualify as "removal", you ignorant, lying c*nt.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2360 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
APA Says Pedophilia is Not a Mental Disorder
Posted on August 20, 2011 by Giacomo
Yesterday, I posted a blog where I talked about moral absolutes and used an argument about pedophilia being defended today by a number of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers.
I also stated if anyone didn’t believe the argument I used, then they needed to do some research over the past 10 years and they would find a number of articles where professional psychiatrists have even defended pedophilia.
As if it were meant to be or just perfect coincidental timing, I found a newly posted article claiming that some members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) want to remove pedophilia from the list of mental disorders.
Matt Barber with the Liberty Counsel Action group attended the meetings where the announcement was made and reported that the discussions were concerned more with the public perception of pedophilia than with the victims, focusing on:
“Destigmatizing pedophilia … removing the stigma, and [getting] the public to stop demonizing pedophiles,” and that,“The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the pedophile,” Barber accounts. There was “very little concern for the children who are the victims of these individuals when they are raped, who these individuals lust after.”
Just saying.....
So some blogger "found an article" stating SOME members of the APA wanted to remove pedophilia as as disorder. That's not even remotely close to your assertion that "the APA" as a whole is working to do so. Your reading comprehension is so pathetic, you don't even realize how frequently it makes you a liar.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2361 May 11, 2013
LawandOrder_ wrote:
<quoted text>Which means that you support incest and bestiality marriages. YUCK.
Gee, another retarded moron who lacks the ability to read and comprehend what others post. How unexpected in Topix. Not.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2363 May 12, 2013
Fredrick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Queer, how many little boys have you molested this year alone??
Hey closet queer. How many gay sex day dreams had you had today?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2365 May 12, 2013
LawandOrder_ wrote:
<quoted text>No, it is unrealistic to expect 20, when there are only 19 up for grabs.
Twenty states practicing marriage equality is actually quite likely.

Surely you are aware that substantive moves are already afoot in at least three of those 31 states to reverse their constitutional amendments. And at least one of those is likely to succeed in 2014. Another of the remaining 30 states may very well be celebrating same-sex marriage again in time for the country's 237'th birthday.

So far we have ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, DE, MD, IA, WA, and DC. MN seems destined to become the twelfth state to recognize marriage equality.

Several more states with no constitutional barriers are highly likely to enact equality within the next few years, including NJ, IL, NM, and HI. Another state, CA, is likely to lose its constitutional ban when SCOTUS rules next month.[If SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, it will be repealed by the electorate in 2014 or 2016.]

That brings us to 17 states highly likely to enact marriage equality without even requiring voters to change their constitutions. So we'd like at least one of the following states that have neither constitutional bans nor marriage equality laws to join the sixteen previously mentioned: PA, IN, WV, or WY. Within a decade, I would expect at least Pennsylvania to move forward. Wyoming is probably the next most-likely, or even most-likely because of the small population.[As we've seen in RI and DE, small states can change their attitudes rather quickly.]

And we also need at least one state to overturn its constitutional ban at the ballot box. A credible effort is already underway in OR. NV has also taken substantive action. Just this year, CO enacted civil unions. Expect a strong effort to repeal its same-sex marriage ban in 2016. There are even murmurings in OH, MI, and FL.(Despite FL's decisive vote to ban same-sex marriage a few years ago, gay rights organizations have recently swept the cities and counties with local protections for GLBT's and their partners. Attitudes are changing quickly, even in the conservative parts of the Sunshine State.]

So my optimistic outlook for 2020 would be 22-23 states. Twenty would be the pessimistic outlook.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2366 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
So some blogger "found an article" stating SOME members of the APA wanted to remove pedophilia as as disorder. That's not even remotely close to your assertion that "the APA" as a whole is working to do so.
Oh, yes it does mean the APA as a whole are working towards removing pedophilia as a disorder...just as they did homosexuality...soon, it will spill over into incest and animals....

Your precious APA won't stop at you....didn't you know that???

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2367 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability or desire to procreate is not a requirement for marriage in any state. So it's most certainly NOT an issue of any relevance to legal recognition of one's marriage. It's only an issue to bigots like you who want to stick your nose into other people's bedrooms.
I couldn't care any less about your bedroom...

Last I checked...procreation happens 'outside' the bedroom too....
Same sex coupling is perfectly natural for homosexuals. The world isn't defined nor subject to what you or other heterosexuals deem "natural".
...and it's totally 'natural' for a pedophile to rape children...doesn't mean we should base marriage off of it....

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2368 May 14, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yes it does mean the APA as a whole are working towards removing pedophilia as a disorder...just as they did homosexuality...soon, it will spill over into incest and animals....
Your precious APA won't stop at you....didn't you know that???
You apparently skipped post # 2359 which proved you were an ignorant, lying c*nt. I'll repeat the relevant portion since you probably can't count back that far:

"The final diagnostic criteria for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has been approved by the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)...

"Pedophilic disorder criteria will remain unchanged from DSM-4, but the disorder name will be revised from "pedophilia" to "pedophilic disorder."

link: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775496

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2369 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently skipped post # 2359 which proved you were an ignorant, lying c*nt. I'll repeat the relevant portion since you probably can't count back that far:
"The final diagnostic criteria for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has been approved by the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)...
"Pedophilic disorder criteria will remain unchanged from DSM-4, but the disorder name will be revised from "pedophilia" to "pedophilic disorder."
link: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775496
Do not confuse That Fool with facts. She is impervious to facts and reason.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2370 May 14, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't care any less about your bedroom...
Last I checked...procreation happens 'outside' the bedroom too....
<quoted text>
...and it's totally 'natural' for a pedophile to rape children...doesn't mean we should base marriage off of it....
The legal problem with your analogy is sexual molestation and rape of underage children breaks multiple criminal laws. Further, children are unable to legally give informed consent to sexual acts or legal contracts. Private sexual activities between consenting same sex partners, like opposite sex partners, isn't illegal. By denying same sex marriages legal recognition, you aren't discriminating against illegal behavior; you're simply discriminating based on your prejudice. You need more than prejudice or moral disapprobation to withstand judicial scrutiny in an equal protection case or when infringing a fundamental right like marriage.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2371 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently skipped post # 2359 which proved you were an ignorant, lying c*nt. I'll repeat the relevant portion since you probably can't count back that far:
"The final diagnostic criteria for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has been approved by the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)...
"Pedophilic disorder criteria will remain unchanged from DSM-4, but the disorder name will be revised from "pedophilia" to "pedophilic disorder."
link: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775496
I didn't 'skip' anything..you think everything you post is sooo important that 'everybody' has to read it don't you?? lol!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2372 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't 'skip' anything..you think everything you post is sooo important that 'everybody' has to read it don't you?? lol!!!
I understand; you don't like reading things that prove you're a lying c*nt.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2373 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand; you don't like reading things.
To the contrary...I read the truth every day...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2374 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not 'dancing'...my point still holds...two ss people can 'NOT' procreate...you are the one dancing throwing in ridiculous scenarios to detract from the truth.....
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
So WTF is your point?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2375 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
...and when they do...they provide the child that is produced w/ a mother and a father in the home....yet another very 'necessary' point that doesn't happen w/ ss couples...
<quoted text>
You'll never know how many of those couples that 'choose not to' have children, do just that...simply because that is what results from their coupling...
<quoted text>
No, not according to the Supreme Court "essential to our very survival"....look it up....
But, dummy, back then it was illegal to have sex without being married...look it up...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2376 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
To the contrary...I read the truth every day...
But are unable to practice it. Got it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2377 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
To the contrary...I read the truth every day...
BTW, I see you're still selectively editing the truth from the posts you quote. LOL

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2378 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
But are unable to practice it. Got it.
You wouldn't know the practice of truth if it bit you on the face...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chevy Volt leapfrogs Toyota's Prius (Nov '10) 53 min Nasty Canadian 10,413
News Toyota recalls even MORE Junk-1.3 million ORIENTAL (Jan '09) Fri Skeptic 357
Nasty Canadian Jap Car News Thu Nasty Canadian 15
News All Honda Accord Hybrid production moving to Japan Wed cpaELVIS 4
News Huge Trouble at Foreign Toyota (May '09) Apr 15 Nasty Canadian 315
2006 Chevrolet Impala Battery Drain Apr 14 dalilaa 3
News Ask Us All Your Deep Burning Questions About Th... Apr 14 Licensed Fartmaster 2
More from around the web