Posted on 08/19/2010 10:43:44 PM PDT by StrangeFeathers
Screw you. Is that clear head-nodder?
Please put me on the AC list.
And let me be the first to dub you as FR's go-to expert on the definition of the phrase, "head-nodder". bttt
GOOD INFO
You have a reading comprehension problem, IMO.
Go back and study. There will be a snap quiz later.
You’ve been added to the AC list!
btt for a freakoid gay invasion.
I must say that you are the most articulate spokeshole for freakoids that I’ve ever encountered on FR. And that’s going some.
War on Certain Substances
Look in the mirror for the freak, freak.
Could be cmj is not the only ignoramus here. If I go slower will it help?
Does it matter why they are homosexual for marriage to continue to be one man one woman?
See what I mean? LOL
Does it matter why they are homosexual for marriage to continue to be one man one woman?
??? I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say there.
I see ya and it’s dang ugly. LOL LOL LOL
Her critics should post their own batting averages.
Ann’s tongue is sharper than most knives I’ve seen. Rock on, girl!
Like Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ann Coulter is burning her conservative base:
"[A blog article] supposes that I ever quoted Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination. That never happened. I repeat: that never happened. I never said that. I don’t believe that…. “In fact, I was one of the earliest radio hosts to support organizations such as PFLAG (you know, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and other efforts to encourage openness and acceptance of gays in their own families, much less society.” – Dr. Laura Schlessinger, “Setting My Record Straight about Gays,” June 22, 2010, Schlessinger’s blog
http://americansfortruth.com/news/why-is-dr-laura-schlessinger-promoting-homosexuality-and-pflag.html
Where is Schlessinger's little homosexual friends when she needs them now?
Ann has been “liberalized”. What 50-year old truly conservative woman is still single and spends all their time hanging with hollywood liberals and gays? No wonder she sold us out on the eligibility issue.
A court is concerned with more than just "standing" in a case such as this, it is concerned about whether the matter represents a "justiciable" controversy or one which is the stuff of litigation. In other words, the court will, and should, ask itself whether it is a court, an article 3 institution, which is authorized by our Constitution to determine this matter or whether there are other constitutional players who have the honor.
If you look at the 12th amendment you will see that electors are responsible, the president of Senate is responsible, the House of Representatives is responsible. The Constitution provides that there are many entities along the way to determine eligibility of a man to serve as president and they include people like the secretaries of the various states and the members of Congress. It is not at all clear from the Constitution that judiciary has the right or the power to set the determination of these people aside. This is not a matter of turning one's face away from wrong, it is a matter of lacking authority or jurisdiction to mix in, even to do right.
If we complain about how a federal judge can set aside the will of the people of California on the matter of homosexual marriage, we ought to consider whether the same arguments apply to federal judges who would set aside the electoral will of the people as confirmed by their electors and their Congress.
In other words if the institutions set up by the Constitution to pass on the eligibility of Barak Obama have done so, it is quite possible that the Supreme Court would rule that it is not within the power of an article 3 federal court to substitute its own review for that of the institutions designated by the Constitution to make that review.
Judges may not and should not act without jurisdiction, that is, without the legal authority to act and decide. If they do so they are merely tyrants. There is not a judicial solution for every problem. If you begin to think that way-the way liberals think-you can tear up the rest of the Constitution.
am NOT TOLERANT of aberrant behavior that perverts the minds and nature of my children
EXACTLEEEEE
BFD -- that's irrelevant to a Christian.
Follow along for a sec, it's not the argument you're expecting.
Let us say (merely for argument's sake) that in the case of homosexuality, we have *solved* the "nature vs. nurture" debate and shown there is a strong biochemical / neuronic component to homosexuality.
Great.
Now how about heterosexuality? Every would agree readily that the basis for that is hard-wired into the vast majority of humans.
...and yet, despite that, nobody is saying that this hard-wiring gives heterosexuals a license to have sex whenever or with whosoever they want.
In particular, Christians *still* insist (on paper; many fall short of the ideal) that one must rigidly control sexual behaviour, and that the only legitimate expression of full intercourse is between a man and wife.
And furthermore, for most of the lifetime of the Church, divorce was *STRONGLY* discouraged at best.
So why is it, that the assertion that homosexuality is latent in the brain, is suddenly supposed to give all kinds of license to *homo*sexual behaviour -- even in the face of prohibitions in the Bible against *ANY AND ALL* such activity, in terms even stronger than the condemnation of fornication?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.