Comments
24,881 - 24,900 of 25,719 Comments Last updated Jun 27, 2014

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27076
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote: Monogamous intercourse has no risk of any STDs.
thehumanhighlightreel wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Didn't think about that did you?

Snicker.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27079
Jun 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: Monogamous intercourse has no risk of any STDs.
<quoted text>
Didn't think about that did you?
Snicker.
So why are you so vehemently opposed to same sex marriage?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27080
Jun 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is more to homosexuality. But that is not the issue.
While I used the extreme violence of anal assault for gays, it can be argued that lesbianism is unhealthy and also carries inherent risk exactly because they do not engage in natural sex and the resulting effects.
You are trying to equate the inherent harm of anal sex with the risks of careless, immoral natural intercourse. They do not equate.
As to demeaning, sit on it.
I am very familiar with the extremely rare examples of ss couples in history. In fact, I've read the early accounts of contact with Indian berdaches. I'd be happy to go into detail about those examples, since they only prove my point. But I have a question for you; Why has ss couples being accepted as married never established itself in one culture and spread? The present situation is far too short historically to validate a change after 8000 years of human history.
The point remains, homosexuality violates basic morality.
Your constant condemnations violate basic morality.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27081
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: Monogamous intercourse has no risk of any STDs.
<quoted text>
Didn't think about that did you?
Snicker.
You assume monogamy to cover the span of the entire lifetime of the homosexual or heterosexual couple involved and that neither partner has an STD transmitted from a parent..

An interesting side note: By your same line of reasoning, there could have been no virgin birth, if you were inclined to believe in that sort of thing.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27083
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

By the way, the Supreme Court gutted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a landmark ruling today.

Now all couples who are legally married must be recognized as such by the federal government, including same-sex couples who have won the right to wed in 12 states and the District of Columbia. And in California, same-sex couples will likely be able to marry again soon.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27084
Jun 26, 2013
 
kuda wrote:
By the way, the Supreme Court gutted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a landmark ruling today.
Now all couples who are legally married must be recognized as such by the federal government, including same-sex couples who have won the right to wed in 12 states and the District of Columbia. And in California, same-sex couples will likely be able to marry again soon.
Indeed.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27085
Jun 26, 2013
 
kuda wrote:
By the way, the Supreme Court gutted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a landmark ruling today.
Now all couples who are legally married must be recognized as such by the federal government, including same-sex couples who have won the right to wed in 12 states and the District of Columbia. And in California, same-sex couples will likely be able to marry again soon.
Kimare just blew out a sphincter. Great day for America, sad day for Kimare.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27088
Jun 26, 2013
 
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Kimare just blew out a sphincter. Great day for America, sad day for Kimare.
Yes, but unfortunately today’s decision applies only to federal recognition of marriages. It doesn’t affect the section of DOMA that says states can refuse to acknowledge marriages of gay couples from other states, a policy that will still stand until Congress fully repeals DOMA.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27090
Jun 26, 2013
 
kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but unfortunately today’s decision applies only to federal recognition of marriages. It doesn’t affect the section of DOMA that says states can refuse to acknowledge marriages of gay couples from other states, a policy that will still stand until Congress fully repeals DOMA.
It's only a matter of time at this point. The house of cards has begun to collapse.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27091
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

kuda wrote:
Yes, but unfortunately today’s decision applies only to federal recognition of marriages. It doesn’t affect the section of DOMA that says states can refuse to acknowledge marriages of gay couples from other states, a policy that will still stand until Congress fully repeals DOMA.
The only protection that the states have in Section 2 is from claims that their denial of recognition violates the constitutional guarantee of full faith and credit. It cannot protect them from claims that they violate equal protection. Federal recognition paints a big target on state amendments and the overturn of California's amendment gives challengers all sorts of ammunition. The next wave of lawsuits ought to begin in the next couple of weeks.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27092
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The only protection that the states have in Section 2 is from claims that their denial of recognition violates the constitutional guarantee of full faith and credit. It cannot protect them from claims that they violate equal protection. Federal recognition paints a big target on state amendments and the overturn of California's amendment gives challengers all sorts of ammunition. The next wave of lawsuits ought to begin in the next couple of weeks.
Achieving liberty and justice for all is such a struggle on so many fronts. It amazes me that people who believe in literal interpretation of bronze age literature have such difficulty believing in literal interpretation of our founding fathers words. The difference seems really inconsistent. Could it be hypocrisy?
Truth

Livonia, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27093
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

"all sexual behavior, regardless of the gender and number of participants, carry varying levels of risk."

There are risks to walking down the street (low), then there are risks to jumping off of a cliff (high). monogamous heterosexual intercouse does not even compare to the high risks of disease/infection that come from the anal sex act. Gays men specifically suffer 20 TIMES the rate of Anal cancer, and ~17 TIMES the rate of HIV compared to heterosexual couples. There is NO comparison at all. The Risk Level is FAR and AWAY HIGHER for gay men...

"Hon, good parents are going to be good parents, regardless of their number, sex or sexual orientation. I assume you were raised by one of each. I have yet to see anything that might even be confused with healthy development out of you."

Men and women are different physically, mentally and emotionally. They each bring unique sensitivities that contribute to raising a child. Studies are almost unanimous concerning this point. To suggest anything different is ridiculous.

Based on your insults and the lack of any intellectual integrity to your posts, you are far too emotional to rationally discuss this issue. Maybe you are a victim of repeated sexual abuse. That could explain your homosexuality and your bitterness. But being bitter towards me will not change the fact that each time you engage in gay sex, you come closer to the day you will require a diaper in your life. Nor will it change your increasing likelihood of contracting cancer, HIV, hepatitis or any of many other illnesses each time to take a penis up your behind; so enjoy your escapades as you will undoubtedly pay a high price for them. I don't waste time in discussions with irrational, emotional, or bitter people. Good Luck with your lifestyle choices...

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27094
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Truth wrote:
"all sexual behavior,
I don't waste time in discussions with irrational, emotional, or bitter people. Good Luck with your lifestyle choices...
So you just dropped in to leave us with this little turd of a post? Goo luck with YOUR lifestyle choice.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27095
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Supreme Court decision is based on the assertion that imposing an imposter relationship on marriage will rectify the self-esteem of homosexuals, and telling a child that duplicate genders are exactly the same as mom and dad.

The context of this verse is no accident. Romans 1:22 (NJB)
While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27096
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Truth wrote:
"all sexual behavior, regardless of the gender and number of participants, carry varying levels of risk."
There are risks to walking down the street (low), then there are risks to jumping off of a cliff (high). monogamous heterosexual intercouse does not even compare to the high risks of disease/infection that come from the anal sex act. Gays men specifically suffer 20 TIMES the rate of Anal cancer, and ~17 TIMES the rate of HIV compared to heterosexual couples. There is NO comparison at all. The Risk Level is FAR and AWAY HIGHER for gay men...
Buttercup, monogamous homosexual behavior is as low risk as monogamous heterosexual behavior, even if it were to include anal sex. HIV and other sexually transmitted viruses do not spontaneously appear simply because someone is engaging in anal sex, one of the partners has to be infected for there to be ANY risk whatsoever.
Truth wrote:
"Hon, good parents are going to be good parents, regardless of their number, sex or sexual orientation. I assume you were raised by one of each. I have yet to see anything that might even be confused with healthy development out of you."
Men and women are different physically, mentally and emotionally. They each bring unique sensitivities that contribute to raising a child. Studies are almost unanimous concerning this point. To suggest anything different is ridiculous.
In comparison to SINGLE parent households, children with two parents do better, when children of two opposite sex parents are compared to the children of two parents of the same sex, no legitimate study has found any difference in outcomes. To suggest anything different is ridiculous.
Truth wrote:
Based on your insults and the lack of any intellectual integrity to your posts, you are far too emotional to rationally discuss this issue.
Based on the complete lack of truth in your posts, calling yourself "Truth" is absurd. Thanks for your dime store psychoanalysis, but to be blunt, pull your head out of your ass, your brain needs oxygen. It's not bitterness you're detecting sweetie, but disgust with liars trying to rationalize their irrational bigotry. You can reply if you feel the need, but I'm done wasting my time on you.
Truth

Livonia, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27097
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
So you just dropped in to leave us with this little turd of a post? Goo luck with YOUR lifestyle choice.
Hahaha.. I'm sure you're quite familiar with turds. You wipe them off of your penis and butt everytime you have sex :) Do your best to keep it out of your bloodstream or you will become yet another statistic. Your familiarity with the consequences of gay sexual behavior on the other hand, is sorely lacking.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27098
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
The Supreme Court decision is based on the assertion that imposing an imposter relationship on marriage will rectify the self-esteem of homosexuals, and telling a child that duplicate genders are exactly the same as mom and dad.
The context of this verse is no accident. Romans 1:22 (NJB)
While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid.
While you rationalize your homophobic agenda with your biblical interpretations, you seem to demonstrate complete lack of compassion for others when it comes to their loving relationships.

I would argue that there’s nothing wrong with being “religious” as long as it doesn’t interfere with one’s ability to show compassion for others. Otherwise, what good is religion?

Marriage should be about love, not hatred. Families should be about support, not shunning or rearing children with low self-esteem. One can be both religious and loving.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27099
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
While you rationalize your homophobic agenda with your biblical interpretations, you seem to demonstrate complete lack of compassion for others when it comes to their loving relationships.
I would argue that there’s nothing wrong with being “religious” as long as it doesn’t interfere with one’s ability to show compassion for others. Otherwise, what good is religion?
Marriage should be about love, not hatred. Families should be about support, not shunning or rearing children with low self-esteem. One can be both religious and loving.
BEST POST yet.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27100
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What went wrong?

SCOTUS made its decision, but SS couples are still only a mutually sterile duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Perhaps it has to be a 6/3 decision to work???
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27101
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
What went wrong?
SCOTUS made its decision, but SS couples are still only a mutually sterile duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Perhaps it has to be a 6/3 decision to work???
Nothing went wrong. The Constitution does not establish a basis for a second class citizenship. SCOTUS ruled as it had to, not necessarily as all of its individual members may have privately wished to. Freedom and justice for all — not just all Christian, English-speaking, white, heterosexual males.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cleaning black dollar \ cleaning black currency... (Sep '12) 11 min Dr Micheal daf 33
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min JUDEletePete 117,941
Your Body Deserves More - Dubai Massage Service 20 min AsianStarMassage 1
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 26 min Naveen kumar 5,289
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 42 min yon 2,410
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 47 min curiouslu 732,491
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Lord stuart XXX 226,145
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Aquarius-WY 538,589
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Stephania 599,748
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr Le_le 173,257
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Commander Bunny 257,745
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••