Posts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a servant of Jesus Christ, I reject the hatred FOR and FROM, the glbt community. I challenge the glbt community to denounce telling children that homosexuality is normal, WITHOUT the consent of that child's parents; the PRIME goal of the glbt community. I speak out against homofascism, transtyranny, genderinsanity, and ANY end-run around parental rights. REDEFINED marriage harms children. Click on the "h" for the full definition of "heteroseparatist."
Standing challenge to Rob Tish, Joe.My.God., and Dan Savage.
Thu.28Jan.2010. How come Rob Tish won't disavow how some in the gay community wish to recruit schoolchildren, in grades K thru 6, INTO the glbt lifestyle WITHOUT the consent of their parents? Especially after my challenge to his video? Will Joe.My.God. ever face my challenge to him? Will Dan Savage ever face my challenge?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(228)
-
▼
October
(33)
- Regnerus. Part two.
- "...marriage is more than what adults want for the...
- The GLBT's community's desire to violate parental ...
- "I want to be a boy again."
- R-74
- HAMmering homofascism.
- Encore pic.
- Dakota Ary.
- Dr, Edmond Bergler.
- Maine marriage.
- Gay bashing... squared.
- Dawn Stefanowicz, heteroactivist extraordinaire.
- Marriage Equality. (It already exists!!)
- 600,000 signatures to protect marriage in the Unit...
- Dear NOM comments. (update)
- How true.
- In front of children too?!
- Father, mother, child. It can't be beat.
- "...the signature meant that I was anti-gay."
- H.A.M. illustration.
- How civil rights and parental rights are violated ...
- Hatred from marriage redefiners.
- The consequences of redefining marriage.
- It's not bigotry... it's biology.
- Congratulations Felix Baumgartner.
- Marriage redefinition bigotry at Gallaudet Univers...
- The Sandusky touch.
- Homofascists aren't after children?
- Feminist-femme lesbian angry at reality.
- HAM pic.
- How gay "marriage" destroys religious freedom.
- Matt Birk supports true marriage.
- Heterosexual awareness month.
-
▼
October
(33)
Nice hyperbole, Mantronikk. Always makes for respectful discussion of LGBT rights. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dXP24nCL1eQ/TD9IWhtY73I/AAAAAAAAAzs/aQNmFqra8r4/s1600/QuitSquirming.jpg
ReplyDeleteGays DO say these things. And gays have all of the same rights that I do.
DeleteNo, they don't. In many states gays do not have rights of inheritance from their spouses, hospital visitation rights, or tax benefits for married couples federally. By definition this is UNEQUAL and they do NOT have the same rights as you do, Mantronikk. You even said in a previous comment that they do NOT deserve what you have meaning you support the UNEQUAL treatment of legally married gay couples.
DeleteIf you haven't DONE what I have DONE you don't have the right to have what I have. Where gay "marriage" is legal, the democratic process has been bypassed by activist judges and/or politicians. The legality of same-sex "marriage" is still undecided by the Supreme Court. Any disadvantages incurred by same-sex "marriage" are due to the choices of the couple involved.
ReplyDeleteIn Massachusetts, I do. You keep referring to judges as "activist". It must be one of those buzz words you throw out there to insinuate that there was any wrong-doing. It's an ad homenim attack (which you reject in general, since you dislike when people accuse you of "bigotry" and "hate"). The fact is that these judges interpreted the law and found that same-sex marriage was constitutional.
ReplyDeleteJeremy Hooper said it best, Mantronikk:
Funny how the courts are a "defense" when rejecting civil freedoms for LGBT people but are "activist" when siding with our basic worth (or in this case, the procedure that got us there).
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/10/activist-n-judges-v.html
And FYI Mantronikk, the "democratic process" you refer to INCLUDES politicians. People elect senators and representatives to vote in their stead. That's why we live in a Constitution-based federal republic (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html). i.e. not a DEMOCRACY. The democratic process was not bi-passed at all.
Lastly, we have 3 branches of government. The executive to hold the laws, the legislative to make laws (i.e. one making gay marriage legal), and a judicial to review laws (i.e. a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional).
Did the people of Massachusetts get to vote on the definition of marriage?
Delete