WTF, Wouldn’t you think that religious organizations would want to keep government as far from their front door as possible!?

Government needs to get out of the church, temple, synagogue…, and although the Separation of Church and State is somewhat a joke … It shouldn’t be. If there was a definitive separation then Prejean’s statement wouldn’t matter… and she’d be entitled to her opinion… its the fact good old CA is pretty much forcing a certain sect of Christianity on all of us thats the problem.

Get married in your church to who ever your church lets you… don’t like it? – switch churches… don’t make the rest of us switch states… or for that matter countries.

Governments – Stop Marrying People! … a generic domestic partnership for tax purposed will do!

Touche’! I think the shoe is on the other foot, pal.

Prejean claims to be a student of the bible and a so called “christian”. Well, here we have an airhead exposing her flesh for all to see. mostly for the benefit of similarly minded, retarded straight men as well as some semi-nude poses from her brief past and she’s decrying exploitive sexual images of women? Pleeeeeeeeeease….what a dumb ass, doesn’t she realize what she’s saying? She’s contradicting her bibilical beliefs. She IS indeed objectifying images of women by posing in skimpy swimsuits and semi nude stints and flaunting her flesh in public, hardly a virtue that her book of fairy tales espouses. She’s lost the moral argument and definitely scored points for the religious right wing wackos who now have the persistent ear of the obstructionist party of hate. Bring it on Prejean, you’re alienating the GOP even further into political exile, you too “inetadv”!

Jaroslav, simple. I’ll ask you the same question in reverse. How can straight women make decisions about gay men? Some of the Mr. America contestants are gay, you asshole. Seems like you can’t stay away from gay people with your constant presence and idiotic rants here. I pity any woman unfortunate enough to get involved with a redneck like you, assuming you like women. Seems pretty weird for a so called straight guy hanging out on a gay blogsite. Prurient interest perhaps?

“Accept that your lifestyle is wrong, its wrong for the society, its wrong for our innocent children.”

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Bigots like you also said the same thing about interracial marriage too while thump your bibles.

BIOOYA

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HER PICTURES.

GIVING HER NAMES CAN COME ONLY FROM FAGOTS?

jj

You keep saying this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And if I let my 2-1/2 year old he will drink water from the toilet bowl, if I encourage him he will continue to drink from there and by age 6, he will begin to feel that’s the way of life and by age 10-12 it’s a done deal. No one can tell him otherwise.

But this is a child however, most of you are grown smart men and women whom should know better but yet you chose the ANUS of another man. ANUS has it own purpose, for waste (SHIT) not for PENIS.

LGBT, as you’re going full force publicly and demanding change of society on this matter, people are beginning to think, research and trying to understand this complex and confusing lifestyle of (“Anything Goes”) LGBT like myself.

I never cared about who’s gay or lesbian but soon as this matter hit the mainstream such as Carrie Prejean (Miss USA ) answer to a question from GAYREZ HILTON, that was it,
I thought of the longtime impact, effect and health danger of this lifestyle and there is no-way anyone with clear understanding can pass this complex and confusing lifestyle.

The time will soon run-out of empathy that got you to this point. Now if someone says something right, most of you becomes outraged immediately, causing, being uncivil and all sorts of nonsense.

Bill, you’re most welcome, glad you were able to get to this topic, I was about to cut and past some of the comments and email them to you.

Ceengoz, FYI….I was fired from a job during the early 80s, before New York City had any protections for sexual orientation based on my perceived orientation. I worked at a Catholic organization of all places, was befriended by one of the closeted gay priests, one of my supervisors. It didn’t take long before the very unchristian hatemongers among them saw to it that I never worked there again, the busybodies, gossipers and bearers of lies and smears. I was escorted to the door as if I’d committed some criminal offense. So quit spreading lies and hate if you want to consider yourself a christian, you clearly are not.

Vernon…..thank you again and to everyone else for taking on these bigots and haters.

You’re earning “good karma points” in gay heaven! Kudos!

I mean, who invited them into our site to begin with? If they can’t take the heat of the kitchen, then they should GTF out!

How would they like it, if we gays came into their hetero-dedicated chat rooms, blog sites, their homes or even their places of worship for the express purpose of laying our insults, derision and verbal abuse on them in the same manner they seem to feel entitled to do on ours?

Talk about being disrespectful to one’s host? I guess Carl and Ceenoz’s butt plugs must have fallen out and they are feeling a tad cranky. ;-P

“No one has deprived you the right to live.”

I’ll pick the most famous example, and ask you to tell that to Matthew Shepard. I’m sure he’d agree with you.

“No one has deprived you of your citizenship.”

But they have deprived us of many of the rights and privileges that citizenship is supposed to confer upon every American.

“No one has deprived you the right to vote.”

And no one has deprived our enemies, who are part of the majority, of their right to vote our rights away.

“No one has deprived you of going to any school or restaurant.”

Absolutely false. I was banned from a store once because of my sexual orientation. I’m not the only person this has happened to, either. Do some research before making a ludicrous claim like that one.

“No one has sent you to hard labor against your will.”

It didn’t happen in America, but that is exactly what Oscar Wilde was sentenced to in England. It also happens all over the world, actually. If America had the sentence to hard labour as a standard punishment, we probably would have found ourselves subjected to it at some point in history. Hell, for all I know, we did.

“No one has deprived you any job including high paying jobs.”

Actually, they have, and in many states they are still permitted to, including my own home state of Ohio.

“No one has deprived you of promotion at your job.”

See my last answer. It still applies.

“No one has deprived you of right to own a property.”

See the previous answer yet again. It still applies where housing is concerned.

“No one has deprived you the right to enjoy yourself.”

I’d say all of the above examples pretty effectively negate this ridiculous assertion of yours.

“If you’re to respect yourself and keep your lifestyle to yourself we wouldn’t be having this back-and-forth.”

That’s the funny part…we’re not the ones inviting bigots like yourself to partake of our “lifestyle.” Rather, you’re the ones trying to force us to take part in yours.

“But instead you want to take a man and turn him to a woman and a woman takes a woman and turn her into a man just for body pleasure and your personal reasons.”

This statement is completely lacking in both logic and common sense. You’re just being an idiot now.

“Then you expect the society to stand up and start clapping for you, I am sorry but this is VERY unfair to the society.”

Actually, what we really want is for society to treat us like human beings, give us equality, and then stay the hell out of our lives and families. I don’t see how that is unfair to anyone…except bigots.

“PLEASE STOP THE ADICTION OF SAME-SEX LIFESTYLE.”

Bitch, please.

“America The Beautiful, SAY-NO-GAY-LESBIAN’S AGENDAS now before this society and our innocent children get lost/destroyed with this complex unnatural man-made lifestyle of LGBT.”

Now you’ve stopped making any kind of sense. You’re getting a bit panicky, child.

“Be truthful to yourself.”

Don’t say it unless you mean it, fuckhead.

“No replies.”

Try and stop me. You’re on our turf, bitch. We make the rules here.

1. “1 view is simply that marriage is NOT a right, but a priveldge. Societies, many of which through out history have been way more open to homosexual relationships, have ALWAYS controlled who and what can enter into marriage. Even in Greek and Roman cultures which believed that love between men was purer and better than love between a man and a women, STILL reserved “marriage” to be between a man and a women. The primary reason for this is because it is the FAMILY unit which is the basis of society. It is in the family unit that the next generation of citizens are raised.
Therefore SOCIETY as a whole has a VERY vested interest in who is entering and exiting the status of marriage. Another wards, marriage is a very protected status… always has been.

So marriage is not a RIGHT but a priveldge.”

This entire argument is nullified by the fact that, marriage equality or not, same-sex couples are still creating families all over the nation. Marriage is no guarantee that a family will result, just as lack of marriage is no guarantee that one won’t.

2. “Many people resent how in the last 40 years, MAJOR social changes are NOT being made by the people, but thru the legal system. Because our nation bases its legal code on “precidence” many people seek sympathetic courts as a way to enact social changes. To MANY people, this undermines the entire basis of a democratic republic. So, unfortunately, the way in which SSM advocates have gone about passing SSM laws, thru liberal judges, makes some people oppose it out of a knee jerk reaction.”

So you’re saying the Supreme Court should have left civil rights for African-Americans up to the people? You’re saying that women’s suffrage should have been put up for a vote? By only men? That sure sounds like what you’re saying. Anyone with the slightest knowledge about the muddy and often vile history of America knows that if you leave decisions like these up to the masses, the masses will fail every time. The judicial system’s job is not only to interpret the law, but to ensure that everyone’s civil rights are protected, even those we personally dislike…especially those we personally dislike.

3. “It seems like a huge social experiment on our kids and our society to add SSM to our existing struggling family. SOME studies have said that kids are just as OK in a SS family as they are in a traditional family, while OTHERS say they aren’t. — So there is debate, and so long as their is a debate, it seems like we are essentially experimenting on our kids, testing our hypothesis that they will be OK, by presenting SSMs as OK. — The fact is we don’t know…so we should be cautious at this juncture.
There HAS TO BE a reason why NONE of the other cultures for the past 4,000 years have tried this before, especially those who were much more liberal then ours.”

Refer to me rebuttal to your first point. There is no experiment going on. GLBT folks have children and create families every day, and they have been doing so for centuries. Slapping the label of “marriage” on these relationships does absolutely nothing to change their content or nature. The social experiment argument is a false one.

4. “Anything that affects the basis of the family unit, which is the basis of society, has the potential to harm it. Many people simply see that the basic family unit is under enough stress, enough problems, etc. to add anything more to it. To change the fundamental definition of something that is already failing 50% of the time, could very well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. We should focus on FIXING families, reducing divorce rates, physical and sexual abuse, etc. BEFORE radically redefining it. The only examples we DO have of countries which have enacted SSM laws.. have shown marked declines in traditional marriages and an increase in divorce rates.
So what does it fix? How does it improve society.
We shouldn’t be enacting laws simply because we can’t see “what it hurts” we should be enacting social changes that have definite positive benefits, known benefits to society.”

It’s not about who it hurts, because thus far it has not been shown to hurt anyone. It is about who it helps, in this case hundreds of thousands of established families who are living very tenuously because they do not have the legal protections that heterosexual couples tend to take for granted. And yes, it helps the children of same-sex couples. This argument is invalid because it is only based on maybes and what ifs, presuming problems will occur, rather than looking for any evidence that they will occur. As for that decline in traditional marriage in SSM supporting nations…I want to see some statistics from two or more reputable sources before I’m willing to credit that point to you. I’m not taking your word for anything here.

4a. “simply our lack of knowledge of what it will HURT, is not, in and of itself, a reason to enact a law. We should KNOW what we are doing…not just enacting laws because of ignorance, which is what “I can’t see who it will hurt” is basically about. It is about a lack of knowledge.
Enacting laws with a lack of knowledge of their results is profoundly wreckless, especially concerning the basis of society.”

And yet, we cannot possibly know what it will hurt, or if it will hurt anything or anyone, without doing it. Again, the presumption that damage will be caused, completely lacking in evidence or proof, is not a justifiable excuse to deny equality to a group of people. What there is evidence for, proof of, is that it would help millions of people. I’ll take definite help over possible harm any day, as would any other reasonable, non-bigoted person.

5. “The countries which HAVE legalized SSMs have seen a marked drop in marriage amongst heterosexual couples. Teens in Sweden frequently say they don’t see a reason to get married. This dramatic shift occurred in conjunction with SSM laws. So the evidence we DO see, seems to show it has a marked impact on the stability of traditional families.. and remember, marriage is the basis of society.”

Again, back up these claims with figures from reputable sources. Also, if you’re going to try to connect the decline of Swedish teenage marriage with the passage of marriage equality laws, explain exactly how those two factors are connected, rather than simply assuming they are. Quote some studies. Hell, read a book. Maybe even two.

6. “SSM advocates like to make marriage out to be a private thing, which is no one’s business. — However, marriage is a social, not private institution. Society is HEAVILY vested in it. The government has CONSIDERABLE say in it. Who can, when you can, your children’s rights, How you raise your kids, what it takes to disolve a marriage, what happens to custody of kids, property, money, etc.
The government and society are heavily involved in each of our marriages.. that is because it is NOT a right and is the basis of society.
The government only allows us to raise our kids (society’s next citizens) because it thinks we can do a better job then a stranger..BUT, if the government doesn’t think you are doing a good job.. it has every right to step in and GIVE your kids to a stranger (foster parents, Child Protective Services, etc.)”

And yet, this argument says absolutely nothing about the validity of providing this “privilege” to same sex couples. The fact that government regulates marriage is not an argument against providing access to marriage to every consenting, adult couple who wants it.

7. “the term “natural” has been thrown around a lot. BUT, intrinsic in the argument that homosexuality is “natural” is that IF it is found in nature, then it is OK for us humans to do. RIGHT? I think we can all see how profoundly silly this argument is. As human beings, we can’t simply follow what is “natural” or what we “desire” for very obvious reasons. In fact, doing so, reduces and limits us significantly. We are gifted with large frontal lobes and therefore we should use them and not be merely driven by our sexual desires or our biological imperatives.
Simply because an examples of it can be found elsewhere in nature, does not mean we should emulate it. — I think we can all agree to this.
Usually when the argument of “it’s not natural” is brought up, it is in regards to the sexually complimentarism of the male female body. The sexual body parts of a male and female are “NATURALLY” designed to fit together. When they bond in this way, their sexual intimacy is intrinsically procreative, at least potentially procreative. It is intrinsic to the sexual act.
Homosexual sex, is neither complimentary nor potentially precreative. So this makes it in a sense… unnatural.
So the claim by SOME that it is not natural is NOT a claim that it doesn’t occur in nature, but that it is sexually sterile and non-complimentary. Another wards, regardless if it occurrs or not, it is not how it is suppose to occurr, naturally.

So we can’t say simply because it occurrs that it is OK to do. That logic runs into all sorts of issues.”

So, which is it, natural or unnatural? This entire argument is nothing more than your opinion, and thus it is not an argument at all. Furthermore, by this logic non-procreating heterosexual couples should be barred from marrying as well. I assume you think that’s appropriate then? I don’t even need to point out the religious foundation this argument is based upon.

You’re going to have to try a lot harder, bub. Right now, you’re shooting blanks.

How can you use the WORD BIGOTRY when:
No one has deprived you the right to live.
No one has deprived you of your citizenship.
No one has deprived you the right to vote.
No one has deprived you of going to any school or restaurant.
No one has sent you to hard labor against your will.
No one has deprived you any job including high paying jobs.
No one has deprived you of promotion at your job.
No one has deprived you of right to own a property.
No one has deprived you the right to enjoy yourself.
Etc.

If you’re to respect yourself and keep your lifestyle to yourself we wouldn’t be having this back-and-forth.
But instead you want to take a man and turn him to a woman and a woman takes a woman and turn her into a man just for body pleasure and your personal reasons. Then you expect the society to stand up and start clapping for you, I am sorry but this is VERY unfair to the society.

PLEASE STOP THE ADICTION OF SAME-SEX LIFESTYLE.

America The Beautiful, SAY-NO-GAY-LESBIAN’S AGENDAS now before this society and our innocent children get lost/destroyed with this complex unnatural man-made lifestyle of LGBT.

Be truthful to yourself.

No replies.

LGBT communities shouldn’t have any level of tolerance for christer or political bigots, whether they’re fundamentalists or those who pray to “Whom it may Concern.” They’re all bad news.

Their opposition to same sex marriage is most definitely an expression of hatred for the GLBT communities. It was true when Clinton and Dole fought for the title of most bigoted in 1996, both supporting the federal DOMA. It was true when Bush won the title and Laura Bush, smiling sweetly, told us not to get so excited about the dozens of state DOMAs because it was just politics. She said that GWB meant no harm. And it was hatred that drove Obama to organize christers and get them out to vote for Prop 8 with the infamous words “gawd’s in the mix”.

Opposition to full same sex marriage equality is bigotry.

It’s an act of extreme hatred to describe a class of people as undeserving of the rights everyone else enjoys. At least that was so in Germany in from 1933 until 1945 for, Jews, union leaders, people with disabilities, the Roma and others. First their rights were legislated away. Then most of them were officially described as sub-human. Later they were murdered until the Red Army crushed the Nazis.

@Robert, NYC: Thanks for taking on Ceengoz, Brian and Carl. As usual with christer bigots they don’t seem to have an ounce of integrity or brains between them.

But you missed all I said because you ‘re afraid and hurting from the living truth, I do not prefer marriage or love for gays and lesbians. ITS ALL BAD for MAN to marry/love with another MAN like wise WOMAN and WOMAN. Accept this simple FACT/TRUTH.
However, if you love another MAN’S dirty ANUS and PENIS so much that you can’t sleep at night, KEEP-IT-TO-YOURSELF. Don’t try to change the society. This is simply a no-brainer.

Thank you.

What an idiot you are! You really think straight men don’t lick women’s anuses let alone penetrate them? You need to rent yourself some hardcore straight porn and find out. Are you aware that more rednecks and religious zealots like you buy more porn in red states than in blue states, that’s a fact. Get your own kind in order first before you start throwing your religious crap at us. Better yet, shove your fucking bible where the sun doesn’t shine. Not all straight men and women can procreate, some are sterile. So I suppose those too should be banned from marrying, pathetic moron that you are. Its NOT a requirement or mandate of marriage either, love is.

The fact is that a lot of you are now refusing to accept the truth about your unspeakable lifestyle. It will NEVER be right that two Men share same bed as lovers like wise Woman and Woman. Its in the living manuscripts of all religion for as long as we all can go back in time. ITS BAD. Why are you all LGBT going contrary to all this, why are you giving material things to these weak and unrealistic politicians to make useless laws that will impair the society.

Yes, I acknowledge that there are so many sins (bad things we do) in our society including me and anyone else but what do you do when you do bad, YOU HIDE.
Why are some of you LGBT not hiding and STOP trying to convert the society like
GAYREZ HILTON who just thinks with his stinking ANUS.

In conclusion, regrettably your lifestyle is degrading and sickening and it defeats the purpose of Man and Woman.

There is no Man created to lick another Man’s ANUS, you learn it, someone tells you, you can do it and give you all the world and you’re-in. If you can’t snap out of it, KEEP IT TO YOUSELF, HIDE IT don’t try to change/convert the society. No mother who in her right state-of-mind would wish this type of lifestyle to her baby.

Thank you.

Carl, if you’re basing marriage solely on procreation, and its most definitely not the primary reason for marrying, love is…then you should also support a ban on straight couples who choose not to or who cannot procreate. Marriage licenses or marriage do NOT mandate procreation nor is it a requirement. Your argument is lame. Civil marriage has NOTHING to do with religious marriage. The state issues licenses, not religious denominations or cults.

hypocritical??! NO. She’s just a young woman who made a mistake. Yes, she should have though better BUT that doesn’t mean she cannot stand up for her moral beliefs.

It is unreasonable to expect Christians (or any religious person) to be free from sins.

Besides, there are several reasons why one may be against same-sex marriage without using biblical/religious reasons:

Same Sex Marriage Advocates have done a good job or portraying Marriage as a “RIGHT” that everyone has.

1 view is simply that marriage is NOT a right, but a priveldge. Societies, many of which through out history have been way more open to homosexual relationships, have ALWAYS controlled who and what can enter into marriage. Even in Greek and Roman cultures which believed that love between men was purer and better than love between a man and a women, STILL reserved “marriage” to be between a man and a women. The primary reason for this is because it is the FAMILY unit which is the basis of society. It is in the family unit that the next generation of citizens are raised.
Therefore SOCIETY as a whole has a VERY vested interest in who is entering and exiting the status of marriage. Another wards, marriage is a very protected status… always has been.

Even in very remote and tribal cultures, they always enact rules of who can and can not marry and often times who is marrying whom, is of community interest.

So marriage is not a RIGHT but a priveldge.

2) Many people resent how in the last 40 years, MAJOR social changes are NOT being made by the people, but thru the legal system. Because our nation bases its legal code on “precidence” many people seek sympathetic courts as a way to enact social changes. To MANY people, this undermines the entire basis of a democratic republic. So, unfortunately, the way in which SSM advocates have gone about passing SSM laws, thru liberal judges, makes some people oppose it out of a knee jerk reaction.

3) With the national divorce rate hovering between 50-60%, it seems particularly illrational to ADD to it now. Many people reject the argument that.. “Well heterosexuals have a high divorce rate so why not give homosexuals a chance”
As-if adding to the problem will make the problem better. IF people realy are concerned with the high failure rate of our marriages..then piling on more people won’t seem to help, or rarely makes a problem better. So PRUDENCE seems to say we should be cautious..not wreckless.

3) It seems like a huge social experiment on our kids and our society to add SSM to our existing struggling family. SOME studies have said that kids are just as OK in a SS family as they are in a traditional family, while OTHERS say they aren’t. — So there is debate, and so long as their is a debate, it seems like we are essentially experimenting on our kids, testing our hypothesis that they will be OK, by presenting SSMs as OK. — The fact is we don’t know…so we should be cautious at this juncture.
There HAS TO BE a reason why NONE of the other cultures for the past 4,000 years have tried this before, especially those who were much more liberal then ours.

4) Anything that affects the basis of the family unit, which is the basis of society, has the potential to harm it. Many people simply see that the basic family unit is under enough stress, enough problems, etc. to add anything more to it. To change the fundamental definition of something that is already failing 50% of the time, could very well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. We should focus on FIXING families, reducing divorce rates, physical and sexual abuse, etc. BEFORE radically redefining it. The only examples we DO have of countries which have enacted SSM laws.. have shown marked declines in traditional marriages and an increase in divorce rates.
So what does it fix? How does it improve society.
We shouldn’t be enacting laws simply because we can’t see “what it hurts” we should be enacting social changes that have definite positive benefits, known benefits to society.

4a) simply our lack of knowledge of what it will HURT, is not, in and of itself, a reason to enact a law. We should KNOW what we are doing…not just enacting laws because of ignorance, which is what “I can’t see who it will hurt” is basically about. It is about a lack of knowledge.
Enacting laws with a lack of knowledge of their results is profoundly wreckless, especially concerning the basis of society.

5) The countries which HAVE legalized SSMs have seen a marked drop in marriage amongst heterosexual couples. Teens in Sweden frequently say they don’t see a reason to get married. This dramatic shift occurred in conjunction with SSM laws. So the evidence we DO see, seems to show it has a marked impact on the stability of traditional families.. and remember, marriage is the basis of society.

6) SSM advocates like to make marriage out to be a private thing, which is no one’s business. — However, marriage is a social, not private institution. Society is HEAVILY vested in it. The government has CONSIDERABLE say in it. Who can, when you can, your children’s rights, How you raise your kids, what it takes to disolve a marriage, what happens to custody of kids, property, money, etc.
The government and society are heavily involved in each of our marriages.. that is because it is NOT a right and is the basis of society.
The government only allows us to raise our kids (society’s next citizens) because it thinks we can do a better job then a stranger..BUT, if the government doesn’t think you are doing a good job.. it has every right to step in and GIVE your kids to a stranger (foster parents, Child Protective Services, etc.)

7) the term “natural” has been thrown around a lot. BUT, intrinsic in the argument that homosexuality is “natural” is that IF it is found in nature, then it is OK for us humans to do. RIGHT? I think we can all see how profoundly silly this argument is. As human beings, we can’t simply follow what is “natural” or what we “desire” for very obvious reasons. In fact, doing so, reduces and limits us significantly. We are gifted with large frontal lobes and therefore we should use them and not be merely driven by our sexual desires or our biological imperatives.
Simply because an examples of it can be found elsewhere in nature, does not mean we should emulate it. — I think we can all agree to this.
Usually when the argument of “it’s not natural” is brought up, it is in regards to the sexually complimentarism of the male female body. The sexual body parts of a male and female are “NATURALLY” designed to fit together. When they bond in this way, their sexual intimacy is intrinsically procreative, at least potentially procreative. It is intrinsic to the sexual act.
Homosexual sex, is neither complimentary nor potentially precreative. So this makes it in a sense… unnatural.
So the claim by SOME that it is not natural is NOT a claim that it doesn’t occur in nature, but that it is sexually sterile and non-complimentary. Another wards, regardless if it occurrs or not, it is not how it is suppose to occurr, naturally.

So we can’t say simply because it occurrs that it is OK to do. That logic runs into all sorts of issues.

Its not right for our children, its not right for our society.
All living things have their purpose on this earth (you know it).
Every body part of any living thing has its purpose and work (you know it).
If any of these body parts, purpose in general is defeated the consequences are complex, and in some cases can be devastating.
I ask all you gays and lesbians,
Why defeat your purpose in life just because of body pleasure?
Why trying to transfer these impairments to the society, what would you gain from it?

Just think of the damage,danger and confusion your putting into the society just because of your personal pleasure.
You should be mad at the person who introduced/initiated you into these gay/lesbian acts/lifestyle. On the other hand if your stuck in this act and you can’t over come why don’t you live your life and don’t try to convert the society.

Man and Man, Woman and Woman MUST not leave together as in matrimony, children of the world MUST not be taught these unnatural acts. The complexity of LGBT lifestyle is too extreme and will be DEVASTATING.

STOP-PEOPLE, GET REAL.

Tsk tsk, Brian’s having another hissy fit. You’re beyond hilarious. You’re nothing but a fraud, never heard of ex-gay therapy? Pleeeeeeeeeeeease! You’re a total fraud and an idiot with a school yard mentality. Run along!