[wagglebee]

For those who promote homosexual behavior in the name of love and tolerance, it's time to take a hard look at the facts surrounding the lifestyle. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer, is hiding the diagnosis and potential treatments of the disease the loving thing to do? Homosexuality is a cancer that affects every area of life – from the psychological to the spiritual – yet the medical facts are commonly swept under the carpet by politically motivated medical organizations and liberalism as a whole.

The left is completely invested in promoting the homosexual agenda, they are totally unconcerned about the risks.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual agenda ping.

[Enterprise]

Yes, by all means. Let's give people who engage in filthy disease spreading practices special rights and equate them with married heterosexuals.

[PaxMacian]

Legislating personal decisions with respect to the unhealthiness of such choices is taking away liberty. We need no more nanny state mentality. The simple approach and the correct one is to keep the state out of religious matters altogether. Marriage is a holy sacrament and as such is an establishment of religion which pre-existed our government.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Stop the discrimination against single people, NOW!
Why am I penalized for not having a partner?
Why should anyone reap benefits from buggering some other?

[gaijin]

In SF, the dirty secret is that there is an unusually high incident of CHOLERA, a disease that you usually only find in countries that lack proper sewage treatment systems, etc.

Know why?

Cuz lots of gay dudes eat each out others' BUTTS!

Gross, huh? Sorry. But that's the TRUTH.

[little jeremiah]

The only conclusion I can come to is that those promoting the homosexual agenda (among others, but this is the foremost example) are actually suicide bombers. They want to destroy themselves, obviously, but they want all of human civilization to get destroyed along with them.

And the cause? Envy of the Supreme, who created natural law.

[gaijin]

Oh wait! I forgot to tell about the "Russian Roulette Parties":

That's a house party where gay men come to party for a fee. But there are rules; no condoms, and absolutely NO talk about HIV status. Another thing --it's guaranteed that one more more persons at the party is/are HIV+.

Cuz you feel most alive when you're kind of close to death, see?

If you derive pleasure from giving the virus, then that's "giving the gift". If you're still uninfected but like toying with the idea of skating near the edge, well, then that's "BUG CHASING".

Throw up yet?

[lilylangtree]

Too bad the demoncRAT governor and the demoncRAT-run WA State Legislature doesn't believe this. They just passed the bill giving queers special rights.

[VOA]

bump

[Casloy]

Such an argument will be a winner every time, especially when the facts are clearly presented.

No it won't. Supporters of same sex marriage would argue, incorrectly, that marriage would reduce the level of promiscuity among homosexuals by making them more a part of normal society. The reason to argue against gay marriage isn't because homosexual acts are unsafe, it is because marriage is about a man and woman. Anything else is not a marriage and should not be legitimized by the state.

[oneofmany]

The stench from the bench is making me clench. -- M. Savage

This judge is obviously as mentally ill as the people she ruled in favor of.

[Seaplaner]

Perhaps time has arrived for a Constitutional definition of marriage.

I notice that the author avoided the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. I like the choice of words.

I also wonder about the choice of words when we hear about infected homosexuals described as AIDS "victims". Not meaning to be disrespectful; however, aren't homosxuals actually AIDS volunteers?

.

[wintertime]

Those who are immune compromised due to HIV are walking petri dishes of diseases that the rest of us can and do get. Besides that, these immune compromised individuals lead lives that put them in contact with MANY other individuals who are also immune compromised and also carrying some very nasty communicable diseases.

As a health professional I am especially concerned about the spread of multi-drug resistant TB.

[kimosabe31]

It makes me sick just reading about this $#!t.

[MillerCreek]

"...The decision, handed down Jan. 20, claimed that Family Law §2-201 unfairly abridged the fundamental marriage rights of the nine homosexual couples who filed the lawsuit..."

"Unfairly"?

"abridged the fundamental MARRIAGE RIGHTS of...homosexual COUPLES..."?

I'm just a poor layperson here but as to my understanding of law, does not there have to be a PRECEDENT upon which a decision such as this is based? And where is that if there even IS one? I so far have not ever heard of any popular vote that agreed to "marriage rights" of/for "homosexual couples" that could even be "abriged", much less were abriged. And what represents "unfairly" as to how those nonexistent "marriage rights" for these "homosexual couples" were "abriged"?

This sort of nonsense is exactly why this WOMAN ("judge") and those similar set into stone the awful stereotypes about women and women's stereotypical "inability to reason logically". Because THIS ONE certainly can't and yet, there she is, "judging" away.

And yet, such a decision she's wrought! Can anything be any more NON sensical than what she's done here? Overthrown the decision determine by THE VOTERS by mere subjective distemper? Please, a larger group of very potent and intelligent attorneys, please sue whoever it takes to set this aright.