Sorry Jerry even young Republicans approve of same sex marriage

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,117
4,831
1
Gessen-Religious-Freedom-Laws.jpg
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,968
21,893
1
We all know you’re a Fagott!

Hey Stabbin'. You have joined select company today. Just like Joe Gun Nut (aka Jjoeaubie21), you somehow managed to commit two (2) spelling errors with respect to the same word. First, the word "******t" has two (2) "g's" and two (2) "t's." Second, when used in the middle of a sentence, it does not have an initial capital "F." Well done, genius.

I'm guessing you never made it past 4th grade. Spelling aside, your insults are not even up to 4th grade level. As such, they're guffaw inducing. Keep postin', dude. In fact, ramp it up. We could use the entertainment. 🤡:cool:
 
Last edited:

joeaubie21

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2021
1,655
1,033
1
Thankfully your ilk is a dying breed.

Yes, the mentally ill bumping plumbing heads and slits, while others cross dress as each other.

It will do wonders to dilute the gene pool and normal population. Kruschev always said we will bury you, from withiin.

It's the Dimocrats way of getting votes and living for today. Fettermoron is living proof of what a terd is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: franklinman

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,698
11,984
1
Why does NJ so many dumb irrelevant posts?

For the record:

10 years ago Clinton, Obama, and Biden all opposed same sex marriage.

42% of Gen Z have mental health issues.

This is the demographic that saved Dem-Media a few weeks ago, which says all you need to know about its collective moral judgment: a generation of shallow, self-absorbed, neurotic brats voting for the Party they correctly understood to best represent their values.

Beyond that, we're talking about two entirely different concepts of sexuality and marriage here: one whose core principles are love, service, commitment and sacrifice; the second: pleasure, self-fulfillment, self-entitlement, and self-regard. One is oriented to the Other; the second: Self. One exalts Beauty; the second: Ugliness. One's end is Life; the second: Death.

The Powers cast Obergefell in terms that appealed to the virtues of compassion and tolerance, but of course they never had any intention of stopping at gay marriage. From there in short order we got the mandated glorification of the LGBTQ banner, the Transgender Cult, the normalization of perversion, the Grooming Culture, and the sexualization of children.

None of this should surprise anyone. All of it logically flows from the core principles identified above. If you want to corrupt and promote decadence in a society, the most direct and surefire route is sex. It's the universal Achilles Heel of human nature. But you have to prepare the ground first, and the Powers have spent long years doing exactly that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ram2020

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,885
16,321
1
Beyond that, we're talking about two entirely different concepts of sexuality and marriage here: one whose core principles are love, service, commitment and sacrifice; the second: pleasure, self-fulfillment, self-entitlement, and self-regard. One is oriented to the Other; the second: Self. One exalts Beauty; the second: Ugliness. One's end is Life; the second: Death.
Yes your own son is under the microscope for his ”16 year old girls are the most fertile” comments so we know all about how you groomed your own children towards sexuality and marriage.

Maybe you should stop obsessing over this topic and look in the mirror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
28,519
45,947
1
Thankfully that group and mentality will be dying off soon.
Shows just how intolerant you and your ilk are of others and their beliefs. Liberals, tolerant of only what they believe in.
 

ram2020

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2013
4,447
6,599
1
There is some gray that's worthy of discussion here, which surly will be denounced by both sides of this argument as either bigoted or anti-religious. I think there is a reasonable middle path to suggest that two gay people should be able to be conjoined in a "legal union" that was previously only afforded to a man and a woman. I'm talking about in the eyes of the law and with consideration to certain tax benefits, rights of visitation, and so on. I think it's also reasonable that the definition of "marriage" as has been understood for thousands of years and mostly as an outgrowth of religious ideology should be reserved for a man and a woman. Like many topics of the day, it all doesn't fit under "homosexuality is immoral" nor does it fit under the overly broad sloganeering of "love is love." To Jerry's point above, is there a case where love "should not" be love? Before I get called a bigot, in the way our society currently views marriage.....I lean towards Gay people having the right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjw165

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,814
2,793
1
Shows just how intolerant you and your ilk are of others and their beliefs. Liberals, tolerant of only what they believe in.
You're the one who's making excuses for a large republican demographic, look in the mirror hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,698
11,984
1
There is some gray that's worthy of discussion here, which surly will be denounced by both sides of this argument as either bigoted or anti-religious. I think there is a reasonable middle path to suggest that two gay people should be able to be conjoined in a "legal union" that was previously only afforded to a man and a woman. I'm talking about in the eyes of the law and with consideration to certain tax benefits, rights of visitation, and so on. I think it's also reasonable that the definition of "marriage" as has been understood for thousands of years and mostly as an outgrowth of religious ideology should be reserved for a man and a woman. Like many topics of the day, it all doesn't fit under "homosexuality is immoral" nor does it fit under the overly broad sloganeering of "love is love." To Jerry's point above, is there a case where love "should not" be love? Before I get called a bigot, in the way our society currently views marriage.....I lean towards Gay people having the right.

Agreed, Ram, there is indeed lots of "gray" in this discussion.

As a matter of law and practicality, I accept the concept of "civil unions" -- "marriages" if you like -- to address the issues you outline.

I don't see the orientation of homosexuality as immoral in itself. Rather, I see its expression in action as contrary to the natural order and therefore not a proper object of approval or celebration.

At the end of the day, there is no escape from the competition of opposing belief systems as the key determinant to one's approach.

When it comes to sexual behavior ("gay" or "straight"), the dividing line is between the age-old Judeo-Christian belief system as contained in Scripture, revealed by the prophets, proclaimed by the Son of God, and developed for centuries by the great minds of our race; and on the opposing side, the rejection of all that in favor of a malleable, personal "truth" seemingly discovered only last Thursday (figuratively speaking), which is established by power, self-interest, and whim.

The former belief system is difficult and demanding...and gave rise to Western Civilization. The latter belief system is convenient and fashionable (hence its popularity)...and is in the process of overthrowing Western Civilization.

God knows, Western Civilization was never perfect...but its replacement now under construction by the Powers is a nightmare. We've already gotten a taste. We're going to get a lot more.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: jjw165 and ram2020

ram2020

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2013
4,447
6,599
1
Agreed, Ram, there is indeed lots of "gray" in this discussion.

As a matter of law and practicality, I accept the concept of "civil unions" -- "marriages" if you like -- to address the issues you outline.

I don't see the orientation of homosexuality as immoral in itself. Rather, I see its expression in action as contrary to the natural order and therefore not a proper object of approval or celebration.

At the end of the day, there is no escape from the competition of opposing belief systems as the key determinant to one's approach.

When it comes to sexual behavior ("gay" or "straight"), the dividing line is between the age-old Judeo-Christian belief system as contained in Scripture, revealed by the prophets, proclaimed by the Son of God, and developed for centuries by the great minds of our race; and on the opposing side, the rejection of all that in favor of a malleable, personal "truth" seemingly discovered only last Thursday (figuratively speaking), which is established by power, self-interest, and whim.

The former belief system is difficult and demanding...and gave rise to Western Civilization. The latter belief system is convenient and fashionable (hence its popularity)...and is in the process of overthrowing Western Civilization.

God knows, Western Civilization was never perfect...but its replacement now under construction by the Powers is a nightmare. We've already gotten a taste. We're going to get a lot more.
Your thoughts/writings disappoint many...they never disappoint me. Well said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,968
21,893
1
This isn't about Republicans, but age and ethnicity. Many folks over 60, particularly immigrants and Catholics, simply don't approve of gay marriage. They don't in Europe either.
You're living in California now, right Horsewanker? No problem for you getting married in that case.
 

Latest posts