Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Wee board]

Thats what mike touhey is use to!

[Rose_NoHo]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>The expert translators of the DSM say that homosexuality means pedophilia and sex with children. So, I tell you how many straights get a boner around children,...

Can't get your mind off of boners and sex with children, huh?

[Wee board]

Nothing better than GeorgeO and Mike Touhey skipping along holding hands.

[Rose_NoHo]

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

front page ny times, the strategy that will defeat the homosexual radicals:
(1) marriage between a man and a woman is the tested foundation of a stable society

Nobody is talking about getting rid of marriage between a man and a woman. Except for married men and women. Most marriages end in divorce.

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

(2) children do best when raised by a married father and mother

Rose's Law...

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

(3) it is possible to respect the rights of gays and lesbians without redefining marriage

No, it's not. Separate but equal !=.

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

Everyone has a right to love who they choose, but nobody has a right to redefine marriage.

So, you disagree with Loving v VA?

[Rose_NoHo]

Made a mistake with copy/paste. My reply was to a post made by jacques renault.

[Rose_NoHo]

jacques renault wrote:

<quoted text>
wealthy homosexuals and wealthy Wall Streeters with homosexual sons bought NY, which can be overturned by vote
what does THAT have to do with your 32-state losing streak?

Why do you take pleasure in people being denied the equal rights the Constitution promises them? That's very unamerican.

[Rose_NoHo]

Tata wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go changing what was said again, you have to be the most stupid one here. I'm not even going to resond to your stupidity. Stay off the drugs and booze

What did I change? What? You lied!?
You can't counter what I've actually said, can you?

Guess you call yourself "tata" because you are a boob.

[Rose_NoHo]

Tata wrote:

<quoted text>
Talk about dumb people,

OK, let's talk about you.

Tata wrote:

you can't show me any where I ever mentioned anything to "gay sex" you liar. My responses have always been economics you dumb FK. I'll just consider the source, you change everything around to suit your self, even your sexuality.

I asked, "Think it's a "sin" to have gay sex?".

[Wee board]

The wee board does not care!

[Liam R]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>And gays love sex with children more than any adult....
By the way, suicide boy, if David did, then even David knew it was sick, because he was king and never had gay sex, married a woman and had kids, and cared for his friend Jonathan's wife and kid. Funny, David had a soldier killed so he could have sex with his wife, but he did not have Jonathan's wife killed, but instead took care of her. I guess David's jealousy was where his desire lied, with women.

David married a LOT of womEn, not A womAn. Funny that the Bible never really talks about him having more than one kid on any of these women... like he could do his dynastic duty for God and country, but didn't want to be bothered to do more than that. Then too, it is obvious that David loved Johnathan dearly, perhaps it would have been too painful to do anything that would be a reminder of that lost love.

Of course, there is also the possibility that David was not actually homosexual, that he was bisexual.

[Liam R]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Mona Lott
I agree, I'm no expert or care to spend the time to be an expert on the knowledge of the Hebrew language. I am glad for you that you spent the time and energy to study Hebrew and along with Pink news to back you up. I gave an example of the word, "exceeded" in another passage that would only mean what I wrote making the woman tranny's like you. Seems like according to pink news that the early people in our history and the Bible were either queer or trans. Maybe with your great knowledge, you can rewrite the bible along with pink news, maybe come out with all pink words when the greatest queer speaks.
Riccardo

It is very sad that homophobes can't set aside their prejudice long enough to actually THINK once in a while. Some times a cigar is just a cigar.

[Wee board]

This isn't th time to bring that up.

[Tata]

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Speaking of saying stupid things, you sure are good at it.

Thank you ... I get it from you and your very odd friends LMAO

[Tata]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
What did I change? What? You lied!?
You can't counter what I've actually said, can you?
Guess you call yourself "tata" because you are a boob.

How do you get boob out of Tata you tranny ??

[KiMare]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
It is very sad that homophobes can't set aside their prejudice long enough to actually THINK once in a while. Some times a cigar is just a cigar.

So David's adultery with Bathsheba was wrong, but his supposed adultery with Jonathon was not?

Your gay twirl is not just sacrilegious, it is really stupid.

[Tata]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, let's talk about you.
<quoted text>
I asked, "Think it's a "sin" to have gay sex?".

You amy have asked the dumb question to someone else because I don't remember it. Like I we've told you many times before, you make things up as you play along you Trans. You need to stay of the drugs and booze.

[Rick in Kansas]

jacques renault wrote:

you've lost all 32 of 32 votes in states chosen by homosexuals because you treat people like they can't see through your lies

If you don't count the vote in Arizona where you even freaked out the heterosexuals with the ballot language and not being able to overturn the Washington law allowing civil unions, you and your unfortunate ilk have had quite the streak. Too bad for you it's over with, as three states are now likely to approve same sex marriage laws at the ballot box and another could defeat one of your honor our bigotry amendments. Ouch.

jacques renault wrote:

wealthy homosexuals and wealthy Wall Streeters with homosexual sons bought New York:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/th...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/nyregion/4-...

Would you like some cheese to go along with that whine you're pouring out? Same sex marriage is legal in New York, whether you like the idea or not, that is not going to change any time soon, if it does at all and there is nothing that the likes of you can do but buff up your coping skills.

[Liam R]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
So David's adultery with Bathsheba was wrong, but his supposed adultery with Jonathon was not?
Your gay twirl is not just sacrilegious, it is really stupid.

And where do you think I said that? Adultery is adultery is the theft of another man's wife. Johnathan was not another man's wife, ergo no adultery. However, in the context of the more modern meaning of adultery as sex with another person's spouse, then adultery would be wrong - but note well that what is wrong was the act of adultery, NOT the gender of the persons committing it.

There is nothing sacrilegious about clearly repeating exactly what the Bible says. When correctly translated out of the Hebrew, there is NOTHING in the Bible that condemns homosexuality.

[WanderLusts]

jacques renault wrote:

<quoted text>
you've lost all 32 of 32 votes in states chosen by homosexuals because you treat people like they can't see through your lies
wealthy homosexuals and wealthy Wall Streeters with homosexual sons bought New York:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/th...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/nyregion/4-...

Why yes,32 Unconstitutional votes,disallowing equal treatment under the law,as per our 14th Amendment! If there ever was a text book example of Tyranny of the majority this would be it! Reminds me of the Wolf and the Sheep trying to decide what's for dinner? I guess that would be obvious now wouldn't it LOL

[KiMare]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
And where do you think I said that? Adultery is adultery is the theft of another man's wife. Johnathan was not another man's wife, ergo no adultery. However, in the context of the more modern meaning of adultery as sex with another person's spouse, then adultery would be wrong - but note well that what is wrong was the act of adultery, NOT the gender of the persons committing it.
There is nothing sacrilegious about clearly repeating exactly what the Bible says. When correctly translated out of the Hebrew, there is NOTHING in the Bible that condemns homosexuality.

First you gay twirl, now you are slimly gay shifting.

The overwhelming majority of both Hebrew and Christian scholars historically disagree with your position for obvious reasons, one which I mentioned.

The overt message of Old and New Testament condemns sex outside of marriage, and marriage is between male and female.