Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's Campaign Pledge

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
Should the NAACP and planned parenthood also start paying taxes then. We lose billions in taxes from them also.

BTW people in case you don't know.... ole Constitution lober is also a skinhead Nazi white supremist who hates women....Hey he said it himself... would you like me to cut and paste his comments from earlier in the week

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
Deny God all you want now. In the end you will not deny him as he cast you into hell for all eternity....You will cry out to him and beg him but he will turn away form you and cast you down..THAT IS FACT AND YOU WILL SUFFER..........I do feel sorry for your soul.

Here let me smear my c#nt juice on your goards 2000 year old comic book after each of my tricks later today... so your holy book can really smell like that jesASS fish you so admire

Jane Dough wrote:

okay, lets apply the traditional definition and count pensises.

Thank you, that was short, yet pointless. The reality remains there is not even so much as a rational basis to limit the legal protection of marriage to being between a man and a woman.

Jane Dough wrote:

So we rely on the traditional definition of marriage to ban polygamy, but to do so for gays is bigotry...i get your argument, its just insane!

Actually Jane, the traditional definition of marriage is not necessary to disallow polygamy. One need only be able to count to three, and comprehend that three or more is greater than two.

Only a fool would advance this illogical and utterly irrelevant argument. Usually, one who lacks the mental capacity to make a specific argument about the topic at hand makes it.

Can you indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry? I bet that you cannot.

Constitution-lover wrote:

I wont deny it. Non-whites are a sub-human group and women are not equal to men. White men are far superior to all others. We are Gods people and God wants men to run things.

You are a moron, and this post proves that you do not love the US Constitution.

What an idiot.

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
We all have the gene to reproduce. CANT DO THAT WITH SAME SEX. So we are all Hetero and some act like DEMONIC SCUM AND HAVE SAME SEX.
CAN YOU PROVE SAME SEX HAS A GENE???? IF NOT NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR YOU...

oh my... got you again.... this is flucking easy with a moron like you... step it up a little.... your to flucking easy...

hmmmmmmmmmm even gays have that reproduce gene as you call it.. yet they clearly have a same sex orientation.... woooow!!! guess that reproduce gene obviously doesn't code specifically for heterosexuallity....

Ya that was easy.... even a hooker can figure that one out..

What a fucktard mental midget you are

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
I wont deny it. Non-whites are a sub-human group and women are not equal to men. White men are far superior to all others. We are Gods people and God wants men to run things.

OH BTW... Jesass wasn't a white dude you ignorant fucktard... and yo Adam an Eve... well 100%... you know AFRICAN... BLACK... LOLOLOL

Ouch I can see that swastika wrinkling on your skinhead right now fucktard

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
I wont deny it. Non-whites are a sub-human group and women are not equal to men. White men are far superior to all others. We are Gods people and God wants men to run things.

Hey Christardo's..... this is your proud GOING to HEAVEN Christian...

LOLOLO(LOLOLOLOLL

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
I wont deny it. Non-whites are a sub-human group and women are not equal to men. White men are far superior to all others. We are Gods people and God wants men to run things.

And we give these morazzes SPECIAL RIGHTS...LOLOLOLOL

gee let's take a look at the cost to our country for those "SPECIAL RIGHTS" we give christardos

"The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions:$71,000,000,000 "

Wow... directly taken from a University study

"States bypass an estimated $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes."

time to change that

Peeww it stinks in here.

Lililth_Satans_Wh_ore wrote:

<quoted text>And we give these morazzes SPECIAL RIGHTS...LOLOLOLOL
gee let's take a look at the cost to our country for those "SPECIAL RIGHTS" we give christardos
"The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions:$71,000,000,000 "
Wow... directly taken from a University study
"States bypass an estimated $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes."
time to change that

you are messed just because you are a heathen doesn't mean everyone is.Sounds like you need something in you life-like love

messed up*

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
All we are shows Gods hand. Deny God all you want it is you who will suffer.

My God loves ALL his children...not just the ones YOU think He should. He created them...in all colors.

I like this Horatio!

>

Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children

The homosexual historical footprint is large when it comes to the rape and murder of children. The most notorious child killer might be Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard), remembered for raping, torturing, and killing perhaps 800 boys in 15th century France. Gilles often raped the boy as he hung from a hook by the neck. Before he died, Gilles took him down, comforted him, repeated the act and either killed him himself or had him slain. In his confession, Gilles testified that "when the children were dead he kissed them and those who had the most handsome limbs and heads he held up to admire them, and had their bodies cut open and took delight at the sight of their inner organs; and very often when the said children were dying he sat on their stomachs and took pleasure in seeing them die and laughed..." ( www.crimelibrary.com )

At the turn of the 19th century, "hobos" or "bums" in the U.S. were often driven from towns because it was believed that they were responsible for raping and killing boys. Even the murder of a boy by homosexual lovers Leopold and Loeb in 1924, then called the "crime of the century," likely involved rape. As of July 23, 2001, the Associated Press list of the worst serial killers in the United States was topped by Donald Harvey, followed by John Wayne Gacy, Patrick Kearney, Bruce Davis and Dean Corll in descending number of victims ( www.crimelibrary.com ). All these perpetrators of serial crimes in the 1970s and 1980s engaged in homosexuality, and the majority of the victims for the last four killers were boys.

Nevertheless, girls get raped and murdered too. Homosexual activists would have us believe that heterosexual abductions are far more common than homosexual child molestations. Perhaps our society has been so slanted against homosexuality that homosexuals are themselves victims of biased historical reporting. If so, what is the situation today? With our modern professional class Ñ including the media Ñ generally in favor of gay rights, it would seem likely that there ought to be minimal reporting bias against homosexuals in the coverage of child molestation cases. So the question remains: are those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately apt to engage in the rape and murder of children?
What We Did

One hundred and three news stories involved the rape and/or murder of children: 90 involved the molestation and murder of a child or children, 11 stories involved only the abduction and rape of children, and two the rape and mutilation, but not the murder, of the children involved. Of the 90 news stories where the child was raped and murdered (0.47% of the unique child molestation stories), 40% involved homosexual molestation.

Of the 95 perpetrators in these 90 stories, at least 43% engaged in homosexuality. These included 39 men, a boy, and a woman who all engaged in homosexuality, and 47 men and 7 boys who engaged in heterosexuality with victims. Of the 217 victims, at least 68% were victimized by homosexual perpetrators, and at least 67% were boys. Boys were also mutilated in the two stories involving mutilation. Furthermore, both multiple perpetrators and multiple victims were associated with homosexuality. In the three stories where two or more killers were implicated, the rapes were homosexual. In 69% of the 13 stories involving more than one victim, the perpetrator engaged in homosexuality. Another 11 stories involved a charge of attempted murder. In 64% of those cases, the perpetrator engaged in homosexuality.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>

Actually Jane, the traditional definition of marriage is not necessary to disallow polygamy. One need only be able to count to three, and comprehend that three or more is greater than two.
Only a fool would advance this illogical and utterly irrelevant argument.

okay, so take the traditional definition..how many women?
You need only count to TWO and see that TWO IS MORE THAN ONE!

yes, again I agree you are a fool.

Lililth_Satans_Wh_ore wrote:

<quoted text>Hey Christardo's..... this is your proud GOING to HEAVEN Christian...
LOLOLO(LOLOLOLOLL

I'd like to thank you. I put your picture on the fridge a month ago and I've lost 10 pounds.

Keeping marriage between man and woman is pro gay since so many homosexuals are born of a married mother and father.

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
okay, so take the traditional definition..how many women?
You need only count to TWO and see that TWO IS MORE THAN ONE!
yes, again I agree you are a fool.

The tradition definition is inapplicable. Polygamists seek greater protection of the law.

Anyone who can count could figure that out.

Can you indicate any legitimate state interest served by "the traditional definition" which restricts same sex couples from marrying that would render such a restriction constitutional, and make you appear competent?

Obamunism and Communism wrote:

Gays are now so boring and require SO much attention it's pathetic.

So true.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
The tradition definition is inapplicable. Polygamists seek greater protection of the law.
Anyone who can count could figure that out.

How about a married couple vs a single person?
A married couple with one child (3)?
A married couple with 2 children (4)?
I helped you out with the addition, no need to thank me.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
The tradition definition is inapplicable. Polygamists seek greater protection of the law.
Anyone who can count could figure that out.
Can you indicate any legitimate state interest served by "the traditional definition" which restricts same sex couples from marrying that would render such a restriction constitutional, and make you appear competent?

now only a legitimate reason? or is it compelling, or rational...
you don't get the difference...you use them like they are interchangeable!

Where do you get the two people to marry from? Our laws? They also say man and woman?

you can't even grasp consistency can you?