# Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah



## Steve_McGarrett (Jan 6, 2014)

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban. 

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 6, 2014)

Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious  progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2014)

The entire problem is a Federal tax code that rewards marriage


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 6, 2014)

I thought you wanted to promote the stability of our society?


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 6, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> I thought you wanted to promote the stability of our society?



You're the one that wants an unavoidable 94% tax rate... hard to do that when you don't want Government telling people who can and can't get married and then taxing them. Government people like Obama.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 6, 2014)

Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 6, 2014)

Now...as in California, there are some legally married gays in Utah..and some who are not allowed to get legally married.    That barn door is now open...can't close it.


----------



## Misty (Jan 6, 2014)

This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept. 

Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?

Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Now...as in California, there are some legally married gays in Utah..and some who are not allowed to get legally married.    That barn door is now open...can't close it.



Sure you can, can you say void previous shams?


----------



## Nyvin (Jan 6, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.



Putting civil rights up for a ballot question is one of the worst things you can do to a group of people you know.

What do you think would happen if the people of Alabama were left to decide the fate of the African American communities in the 1960's?


----------



## Nyvin (Jan 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?



Why is marriage a conservative concept??


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 6, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.
> ...



Civil rights have nothing to do with what we are discussing here. 

And you shouldn't speculate what would or wouldn't have happen. The people may have surprised you. But we will never know because the Courts had their way first.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 6, 2014)

the right claims it is


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 6, 2014)

refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue


----------



## Jughead (Jan 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?


I could only speak for myself, however as a man of faith, I don't acknowledge nor endorse gay marriage. My faith is extremely important to me, and I would not ever consider abandoning my faith in order to endorse gay marriage.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 6, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...


I believe the States should have the right to determine what laws they should be allowed to follow. 

However, I disagree with your notion that government should be allowed to enter anyone's bedroom and dictate, under penalty of law, what a person can or cannot do in their homes.  This is not a Conservative stance and smacks of tyranny.

Either you are for limited government, or you are not.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?



Marriage was established at the Foundation of the world, before there was conservative or liberal or any other sort of political group. It exists over politics.

Gays are free to marry already. The issue is they don't want to get married. They want us to redefine marriage to include what they want to do.

We could pass a law calling all dogs cats. That doesn't mean dogs are cats. Nor does it mean that same sex relationships are marriages.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 6, 2014)

OKTexas said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Now...as in California, there are some legally married gays in Utah..and some who are not allowed to get legally married.    That barn door is now open...can't close it.
> ...



No ex post facto, luv.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 6, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...



How does not expanding the governments power to regulate same sex relationships allow the government to dictate what a person can do in their homes? By not recognizing same sex relationships as marriage, has the government prevented them from doing anything they want sexually?


----------



## bodecea (Jan 6, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> ...



And I would hope you would never be asked to.

Now...let's go on to civil laws....do you think that civil laws should be at the beck and call of religious beliefs?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's not ex post facto if it was never actually law to allow them in the first place.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 6, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



It was legal for gays to marry, for a time, in Utah.   Those people who took advantage of that window of legality are legally married.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 6, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.
> ...


The right to marry is not a constitutional issue. The constitution does not recognize a fundamental right to marry. Why would it have anything to do with civil rights?


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?



No reason to be confused, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's open to any individual who chooses to enter into it. You want something else, call it something else. End confusion.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 6, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


Yes, it has.

However, there is a much simpler solution.  Simply do away with government recognized marriage all together.  Civil contracts can do everything that current marriage law does, without the emotional blackmail and governmental oppression.

Marriage is essentially a Religious Institution.  People can get married in church, and if they can find a church to marry the same sex, more power to them. 

However, religious marriage would not be recognized by the government for anyone.  Only civil contracts.

I don't really need any government to tell Me I am married, so I could care less what others, the government, or even God thinks about it.


----------



## JohnA (Jan 6, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.
> ...


 gay marriage is NOT  a civil right civil rights  protects classes and races  homosexuality is neither  
 dont disagree with gays  getting married   but its NOT  civil rights issue


----------



## Jughead (Jan 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Of course not. However we need to use common sense and good judgment. For instance, if I were employed as an IRS official, and my faith would prevent me from processing same sex joint tax returns, I should be excused from that part of the job. The IRS would need to provide special accommodation so the IRS official would not lose his job because of his faith.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 6, 2014)

Jughead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



Actually, it's about the government NOT curtailing equal rights when it comes to it's treatment of law-abiding tax-paying citizens.    It can...but only with valid legal reasons why.


----------



## JohnA (Jan 6, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue


 no they have the same rights as anybody   else they just want extra rights  no covered by the constitution 
  we could  say the same for pedifiles   could nt we ?


----------



## JohnA (Jan 6, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...


 I agree the states  should decide      its personal preferance NOT CIVIL RIGHTS


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 6, 2014)

JohnA said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


Its not a civil rights issue.  No one has the right to be married.  But everyone has the right to own or rent property free of government interference.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 6, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> the right claims it is



They also claim to have the right to decide it for everyone else. 

The radical religious right is a cancer on our society.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 6, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...



You do realize this is just a procedural issue, right?  The injunction is appropriate while the matter is pending appeal, in order to preserve the status quo.  This has nothing to do with the merits of the case.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 6, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...




According to the SCOTUS you are mistaken.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...


Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. It is not a right.



> marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point


Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



> the Constitution does not define a right to marriage


Marriage and the Constitution - Christopher Merola - Page full


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...


According to the SCOTUS, it is not their job to protect us from a corrupt Congress or Executive.

Their credibility no longer applies in matters of Constitutionality.  I realize people will forever follow the SCOTUS as the final arbitrator of all that is holy and good and right.....but I no longer bother with citing them as an authority on anything but their own hubris.


----------



## bendog (Jan 6, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



Like it or not, they get the final say.  That said, whether gays in Utah can marry isn't something I really wonder about.  If I did, I'd wonder WTF they're thinking to even live  in Utah.  LOL  Hey, the want abuse, move here to Mississippi.  They'll have a blast ... possibly literally.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 6, 2014)

Yep.  Against my State's Constitution.




> _In the United States, it falls to states to make the laws governing marriage.
> 
> In Utah's request for a stay of Shelby's ruling, governor Gary Herbert cited a Supreme Court decision at the end of June in the case of "Windsor v. United States" that reaffirmed that principle.
> 
> ...




US Supreme Court temporarily blocks gay marriage in Utah


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 6, 2014)

Isn't their main desire simply a recognition of their commitment? I could care less if two guys or two gals want to "marry." Keep the government out of it.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 6, 2014)

Mudflap said:


> Isn't their main desire simply a recognition of their commitment? I could care less if two guys or two gals want to "marry." Keep the government out of it.



No they want .gov recognition.

Only marriage is reserved to the States' purview.

Which puts a "kink" in it.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 6, 2014)

bendog said:


> That said, whether gays in Utah can marry isn't something I really wonder about.



Do you ever wonder about the Federal authority overstepping the 10th Amendment and the power reserved to the States ?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 6, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...




Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zabloki v Wisconsin. Marriage is a fundamental right.


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 6, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Mudflap said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't their main desire simply a recognition of their commitment? I could care less if two guys or two gals want to "marry." Keep the government out of it.
> ...



I see what you did there.

Your state, your rules. There are obviously people in the great state of Utah who disagree with that position, though.


----------



## Politico (Jan 6, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious  progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.



Agreed. We should all just get gay married and be done with it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWxWzqChvfo]South Park - Gay Fish - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 6, 2014)

I agree with whoever it was that said they'd watch the shit out of Gay Divorce Court.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 6, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Its not a civil rights issue.  No one has the right to be married.  But everyone has the right to own or rent property free of government interference.



Well, the Supremes have seen a right to marriage.

Beyond that, it's a civil rights issue in that it is a right that anything the state offers must be offered to citizens equally, unless there is a valid justification in the eyes of the courts.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And that isn't even mentioning the people who got married out of state, who are ALSO legally married.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zabloki v Wisconsin. Marriage is a fundamental right.



To the opposite sex.

Not who or whatever you wish to marry.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 6, 2014)

Homosexuality is a paraphilia like any other.

You are far within your rights to engage between consenting adults.

You have the right to marry in states were it is the will of the people

But it is what it is.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?


Marriage is a social and cultural concept that stretches back into the mists of prehistory, long, long before there was such a thing as a 'Conservative' or a 'Liberal', and before an alphabet had even been invented by which to spell such words.

Pretending that gay-unions are 'marriage' is a modern-day Liberal concept that repels and nauseates much of the rest of the population.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2014)

SCOTUS recognizes the right to marriage, recognizes the federal interest in marriage, and recognizes the purview of the 14th Amendment.

We will see what will happen.


----------



## oreo (Jan 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?




I think most of the nation is for "civil unions"--which is the exact same as marriage--just not called marriage.  Marriage--means husband and wife--husband being male and wife being female.  And I think that is what irritates most people.  It's been that way for centuries--the association of words--that doesn't go away easily.

However, in our country there is such a basic human right in our constitution--called "The pursuit of happiness"--and I don't see how the court is going to be able to ban gay marriage because of that.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2014)

Pursuit of happiness is not the same as attainment of happiness...


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 6, 2014)

oreo said:


> However, in our country there is such a basic human right in our constitution--called "The pursuit of happiness"--and I don't see how the court is going to be able to ban gay marriage because of that.



Link to Pursuit of Happiness Clause in our Constitution ?


----------



## oreo (Jan 6, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...




Well your traditional marriage has a 50% divorce rate in this country today. 

Furthermore--no ONE wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.  IOW--being gay is NOT A CHOICE someone makes.  Nor can being gay be prayed away.

Those that are straight are going to be straight for all of their lives, and those that are gay are going to be gay all of their lives. * I don't think because someone is different from you that they should be persecuted by others who think like you do.*

I would prefer that Gays have civil unions versus marriage--because of the association of the words husband meaning male and wife being female.  That's my only issue with this.


----------



## Plasmaball (Jan 6, 2014)

what an odd move by SCOTUS. Why this state and not other ones that went through the courts? Smells fishy.......


----------



## oreo (Jan 6, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Pursuit of happiness is not the same as attainment of happiness...




True--but no other person has the right to stand in the way of someone else's pursuit of happiness whether that person achieves it or not.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2014)

oreo said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Pursuit of happiness is not the same as attainment of happiness...
> ...


Unless society at-large determines that activities and behaviors related to such pursuit are detrimental to society.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2014)

This won't happen: "Unless society at-large determines that activities and behaviors related to such pursuit are detrimental to society."


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 6, 2014)

oreo said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...




The only way your idea passes Constitutional muster is if you took the word marriage out of ALL civil marriage licenses. Civil Unions for gays and legal marriage for straights is unconstitutional. Civil Unions for all is not.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 6, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




You have to actually _demonstrate_ said detriment. Go!


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> "..._Civil Unions for gays and legal marriage for straights is unconstitutional_..."


Only according to present-day interpretation.

All it takes a a reverting back to an older and more traditional interpretation, and, suddenly it's no longer unconstitutional.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 6, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Civil Unions for gays and legal marriage for straights is unconstitutional_..."
> ...




Separate but equal. Look it up.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Having a black skin color is not detrimental to society.

Engaging in perverse and unnatural sexual practices is oftentimes deemed detrimental to society.

Look it up.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 6, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Civil Unions for gays and legal marriage for straights is unconstitutional_..."
> ...



A pre-14th Amendment application of the Constitution to marriage means pre-Loving.

I assume we could go back, but there would be a lot of interracial couples and their families plus a whole bunch of the rest of us to go back to traditional marriage where coloreds could only marry colored and whites could only marry whites.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



Here you are:



> From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS



AND



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of *depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...



AND



> Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...



The same years the sudden increase in HIV in boys ages 13-24 are the same years gay is getting mainstreamed in society through the vehicle of marriage.

Also see this article:



> http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
> *Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review*
> James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> ...



It is a peer-reviewed article with about 350 citations in its bibliography.  It documents the nature of social conditioning upon sexual choices and thereby sexual conditioning [orientation] post natally.  It concludes that humans can be expected to be subjected to the same laws and conclusions.  Lengthy article but well worth the read for those who are say, arguing innate vs behavioral in, say, a courtroom or Supreme Courtroom...


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Now...as in California, there are some legally married gays in Utah..and some who are not allowed to get legally married.    That barn door is now open...can't close it.



Gay marriages in California are not now, nor have they ever been legal.  Look at the constitution.  



> CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
> ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
> 
> 
> ...




It may disappoint you to know that the US Supreme Court affirmed that in DOMA where they noted that a state's consensus is the only entity to have the right to affirm or deny gay marriage and that that right is retroactive to the founding of the country.

You will be hearing more about that exact wording as the Utah case progresses to Washington DC.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 6, 2014)

duplicate edited


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> This won't happen: "Unless society at-large determines that activities and behaviors related to such pursuit are detrimental to society."



Yep, elections only count when the commies agrees with the society at large, other wise it's a job for the courts.


----------



## Barb (Jan 7, 2014)

also


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Saying it does not make it so. You must actually demonstrate said detriment. Go.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



The main detriment? The fact that this issue has succeeded in dividing Americans far and wide. Normally, I would work to end that derision in one way or another.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



BZZZZTTTT. Won't stand up in court. Who is causing this division? On one hand you have a group of people wanting equal rights...on the other people wanting to stop those equal rights. Who is creating this "division"?

We could end it. Marriage equality in all 50 states would "end" it.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Being stupid is detrimental to society.  But nobody is denying you the right to marriage.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 7, 2014)

Excellent point.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Based on what?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



It makes them feel icky.


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



I must have missed the part of the bible that said christians should judge, hate, and deny people that live their lives a way christians don't agree with. Yup, must have skipped right over that while busy reading how Jesus taught his followers to love they neighbor, hate the sin and not the sinner, and to help people whenever possible.

If your religion says being gay is wrong, fine, then you personally should not be gay. But saying that your religion forbids you from interacting with people just because they don't believe the same thing you do is an affront to christianity.


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 7, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> *I must have missed the part of the bible that said christians should judge, hate, and deny people that live their lives a way christians don't agree with. *Yup, must have skipped right over that while busy reading how Jesus taught his followers to love they neighbor, hate the sin and not the sinner, and to help people whenever possible.
> 
> If your religion says being gay is wrong, fine, then you personally should not be gay. But saying that your religion forbids you from interacting with people just because they don't believe the same thing you do is an affront to christianity.



Hezekiah 12:22


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Mudflap said:


> Hezekiah 12:22



Well, if we're going to the Old Testament, then I have to ask you something:  Can I sell you my daughter to settle up my debt?


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Mudflap said:
> 
> 
> > Hezekiah 12:22
> ...


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



That's just silly. I interact with everyone and don't hate anyone, never have. What I said in my post was that if the nature of my job would require me to engage in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith, then depending on the circumstance, I should be excused from that activity.

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



No, if you don't want to do the requirements for your job, then you should get a new job.


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



Declining to perform a wedding ceremony happens all the time... divorced couples wanting to remarry comes to mind. I've never heard of clergy (or whatever term should be used) being forced to marry a divorced couple, and don't think clergy should be forced to marry a gay couple. There is already clergy out there willing to do so.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.



Where I grew, up the Justice of the Peace was an elected official and there was only one.

The first amendment does not protect you from performing an essential function of your job if there is no reasonable accommodation and it places an undue hardship on the employer.  Since most localities have only one JOP, that can be viewed as an employer hardship.  For example you are Jewish and are hired as a cook in a Diner, you tell the manager that you refuse the cook bacon and will not prepare the Pulled Pork BBQ sandwiches.  They are not required to accommodate your refusal to perform the functions of the job.

You are better off using the IRS Tax Auditor example as the IRS has multiple agents assigned to each regional office.


>>>>


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.
> ...


I guess it depends on the city. I recall in Dallas for instance we had about a dozen or so Justice of the Peace judges.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Actually, as far as I know, there is no state where a judge or justice of the peace is required to perform any marriage ceremony at all.  They are authorized to do so.  But most do not, and many who do occasionally do not do so on a regular basis (usually for family or something like that).


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...


That's not very practical in some circumstances. I agree that if you're looking for a new job, then of course you should not accept the job if you cannot perform the required duties.

However, if say I'm an IRS tax official who's been on the job for 35 years. For 35 years, I have been able to do my job with no issues. However now with the legalization of gay marriage comes the possibility that I may have to process joint tax returns from gay couples. This would clearly be in conflict with my faith. It would be mean spirited for my employer to fire me after 35 years because I decline to perform new duties that are in conflict with my faith. The approach here would be to have another colleague handle that part of the job. This in my opinion would be a reasonable accommodation given the circumstances.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> That's not very practical in some circumstances. I agree that if you're looking for a new job, then of course you should not accept the job if you cannot perform the required duties.



Too bad, suck it up.



> However, if say I'm an IRS tax official who's been on the job for 35 years. For 35 years, I have been able to do my job with no issues. However now with the legalization of gay marriage comes the possibility that I may have to process joint tax returns from gay couples. This would clearly be in conflict with my faith. It would be mean spirited for my employer to fire me after 35 years because I decline to perform new duties that are in conflict with my faith.



That is how any job works.  If you aren't willing to do what your job requires of you, either quit and find a new job, or stay and get fired.  It's pretty simple.  There are plenty of people whose jobs require them to work on religious holidays.  Either do it, find a new job, or get fired for refusing to do it.


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



Whether your religion believes that or not is irrelevant. Muslims don't believe in eating pork, but we're not about ban bacon just because of that. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. If your religion says that gay marriage is wrong, then don't marry some that's the same sex as you. But don't try to push your religious beliefs on people through your job.

Besides, I see a whole lot of christians being in conflict with their faith almost every day. Why cherry pick this one? How many christians do you see eating pork and shellfish?

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the bible does it say that you cannot conduct business with someone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


That's a very good question.

There is a considerable body of commentary - lay and judicial - spanning several centuries - regarding the detrimental effects and degenerate nature of homosexuality.

You're welcome to cherry-pick some of the more reasonable objections and cautions, in order to gauge value.

Why do people believe that such perverse and unnatural sexual practices are detrimental to society?


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



That's not an answer.  Clearly, you have no answer.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 7, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. .




No it's not.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the bible does it say that you cannot conduct business with someone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.


I agree, and I do conduct business all the time with folks who don't share my faith, and yes gay folks as well. I have no issues with that. What I do have a problem with is being required to participate in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith. For instance if a neighbor who was gay was to invite me to his wedding, I would politely decline the invitation.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jan 7, 2014)

Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.

What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
The homosexuals must be stoped.
Homosexuality must be made to be a criminal offence.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 7, 2014)

52ndStreet said:


> Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.
> 
> What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
> family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
> ...




Except for the fact there are laws on the books that require a couple to be infertile before being able to marry.


>>>>


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Oh, I can conjure-up a half-dozen or more fairly solid answers easily enough.

It's just that I've found it most helpful when the opposing faction does their due diligence and does the conjuring

Which is what I was trying to accomplish here.

Asking, for all intents and purposes: "_Why do you think you are opposed so strenuously? Not the easy answers. The weightier, more substantive ones._"

But you're welcome to think whatever you like, about my ability to do that conjuring.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jan 7, 2014)

52ndStreet said:


> Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.
> 
> What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
> family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
> ...



As I said, the institution of marriage is ment for procreation, life, one man one woman=one
or two children.Not for the promotion of Sodomy, or any form of homosexuality,or beastiality,
which is a direct offshot of homosexuality.
Homosexuality must be criminalized now!., as it has been in Uganda and many other God fearing nations. It is a sin in the eyes of God, and abomonation.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> That's not an answer.  Clearly, you have no answer.



I do have an answer however.  I repeat:



> Here you are:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And those 350 citations are peer reviewed also.  So that scientific analysis that supports sexual orientation as influenced by society is backed more probably by 1,000s of researchers.  Go ahead, give the articles a read.  And after you do, you can ponder how "monkey see, monkey do" has affected young boys in a very negative way in just the years gay marriage is attempting to normalize sodomy in the eyes of future generations.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Having a black skin color is not detrimental to society.
> 
> Engaging in perverse and unnatural sexual practices is oftentimes deemed detrimental to society.



Having black skin color once was, and even now sometimes is, _deemed_ detrimental to society.  But just like in the case of homosexuality, it is false.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 7, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah
> 
> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> ...



Has anyone pointed out that the OP is not true?

The SC did not "stop" gay marriage. The truth was accidentally included in the OP: 



> The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.



Eventually, all Americans will have the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution and that's the way it should be.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Oh, I can conjure-up a half-dozen or more fairly solid answers easily enough.
> 
> It's just that I've found it most helpful when the opposing faction does their due diligence and does the conjuring



Translation:

You are not capable of meeting your logical burden of proof, and are attempting to escape through the back door by leveraging an expectation for the opposition to conform with an argument to ignorance fallacy.

Your fallacy is noted, as is your inability to support your premises.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Like some of those fun studies I read from the 1800s that "proved" that women were too emotional to think clearly...that women were not adept enough to run things like sewing machines and typewriters?


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 7, 2014)

the fact that this comes out of Utah where polygamy was once practiced shows the slippery slope that may develop from this open-ended view of the 14th amendment. 

Utah also just had a case that loosened restrictions on polygamist type relationships  

The right way to deal with this is to prevent government from giving tax benefits to any couple, which is unfair to single people. 

perhaps you could have civil unions for both sexes which would allow divorce etc.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 7, 2014)

52ndStreet said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.
> ...



Ugly, vile, vicious, gnorant and bigoted OPINIONS you are welcome to hold. 

Your god is ashamed of you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> the fact that this comes out of Utah where polygamy was once practiced shows the slippery slope that may develop from this open-ended view of the 14th amendment.
> 
> Utah also just had a case that loosened restrictions on polygamist type relationships
> 
> ...



We already have "civil unions for both sexes which would allow divorce". We call it marriage and that's all it is. 

Yes, some people choose to hold a religious ceremony but marriage is, first and foremost a legally binding civil act.

Edited to change the last line to:

Yes, some people choose to hold a religious ceremony but marriage is, first and foremost a legally binding civil contract.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 7, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah
> ...



Potato potAto.  The fact is that gay marriages in Utah have CEASED while the case makes its way to SCOTUS.

I'm posting a separate thread about a related matter.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue



No one has been denied any rights because of how they were born. So you agree that this isn't a civil rights issue. Atleast if we follow your definition.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 7, 2014)

52ndStreet said:


> Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.
> 
> What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
> family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
> ...




Must it? How likely do you think that is, big mouth?


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

"How you were born" has nothing to do with this issue, and I really wish people would stop trying to use that as justification of gay marriage.  The truth is that it doesn't matter if people are born gay, or if they choose to be gay, or if they become gay by being exposed to homo-radiation from their television screens while watching Will and Grace.  The decision to have sex, engage in a relationship, or commit to a lifelong partnership, with whomever you choose is a personal decision.  Two gay people getting married has absolutely zero effect on society at large, and is entirely within the rightful God given personal freedoms of two people.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...




Wrong. They are suspended until the full 10th rules, not the SCOTUS.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue
> ...




Since people do not choose to be gay, only to act upon their inclinations, yes they are being denied because of how they were born.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

52ndStreet said:


> Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




^^Poe's Law^^


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I can conjure-up a half-dozen or more fairly solid answers easily enough.
> ...


Think what you like.

I know the truth of it.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




The truth of what? There are no studies that show gay people legally marrying is a detriment to society.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


 
What a liar you are.

"Yes, I chose to be gay." "I could have chosen a different path."  "...for people like me, the discussion will no longer be about whether it was a choice or not. It will be about why the choice should not even be a topic of discussion.
"Yes, I chose to be gay. And that should be okay!"
I Chose to Be Gay | Filipino Freethinkers


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

"Being gay is my choice. I choose to be gay, because I choose to be gay. I embrace it fully, and don't choose anything else. "

I Choose To Be Gay - Democratic Underground


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqnM30tyGAg]Why I Chose To Be Gay - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> "Being gay is my choice. I choose to be gay, because I choose to be gay. I embrace it fully, and don't choose anything else. "
> 
> I Choose To Be Gay - Democratic Underground



It doesn't matter if the choose to be gay.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "Being gay is my choice. I choose to be gay, because I choose to be gay. I embrace it fully, and don't choose anything else. "
> ...



I agree. it's still wrong either way


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

In your opinion, Avatar, and you don't speak for anybody but yourself, certainly not for God.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



That's your opinion, and you are free to not be involved in a homosexual marriage if that is your choice.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> In your opinion, Avatar, and you don't speak for anybody but yourself, certainly not for God.



Find me any place the Lord looks upon sin with any allowance.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Im also free to call a square a circle. But it's not going to make the square any rounder, or make me look any saner.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In your opinion, Avatar, and you don't speak for anybody but yourself, certainly not for God.
> ...



Show any place where you speak for God.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Whenever I act in the capacity of my calling. Wherever that may be


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



You can call it a square, a circle, whatever you like.  See, that's the great thing about freedom.  You are free to decide whatever name you like for squares and circles for your own life.  A free society refrains from making those decisions for other people.  A free society lets polygons be polygons.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...


False alarm.

I know the truth of it, in this context = "_I know that I am capable of articulating a variety of fairly solid reasons why people are put-off by homosexuality and why they believe that homosexuality is detrimental to society, even if you think that I am incapable of articulating such reasons._"

Hope that helps.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 7, 2014)

When it comes to drugs and marriage, you can count on the conservative movement to be BIG government.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



You can only show your calling is given by man not God.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> ...


How does a married gay couple threaten your faith?


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Way to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.  The Utah judge's ruling was certainly an abomination as he was legislating from the bench.

But while I don't agree there is anything wrong with gays being gay, that you believe it's government's job to promote morality, family values and common decency is really disturbing.  I think it's the job of citizens and groups of citizens, like churches, to do that.  Assigning that job to government, wow, what a terrible idea.


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> The truth of what? There are no studies that show gay people legally marrying is a detriment to society.



All government marriage is a detriment to society.  It is another excuse for government to divide citizens and treat them differently.  All citizens of a country should be the same to that country.  Gay government marriage only makes it worse in that it expands the number of people they are able to divide and pit against each other.


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> I could only speak for myself, however as a man of faith, I don't acknowledge nor endorse gay marriage. My faith is extremely important to me, and I would not ever consider abandoning my faith in order to endorse gay marriage.



I certainly would never encourage you to enter into a gay marriage against your faith, but if that's your only issue, then why would it validate your faith to deny other people from entering into gay marriage?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...




So you know my experiences enough to call me a liar? I never chose to be attracted to women. Could you choose?


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> In your opinion, Avatar, and you don't speak for anybody but yourself, certainly not for God.



Why is it only ever opinions you don't agree with that don't matter?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




No, it doesn't. You still have not provided a detriment to society that occurs because I'm legally married to my same sex partner.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > I could only speak for myself, however as a man of faith, I don't acknowledge nor endorse gay marriage. My faith is extremely important to me, and I would not ever consider abandoning my faith in order to endorse gay marriage.
> ...


I won't deny others from living their lifestyle choice, I just won't acknowledge it. Meaning that if I'm invited to a gay wedding ceremony, I would politely decline the invitation.


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



Fair enough, that is your right.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The truth of what? There are no studies that show gay people legally marrying is a detriment to society.
> ...




How's that legislation to end the cash and prizes going? You getting a lot of legislators onboard? How is such legislation doing in people's initiative states? Heck, I'd love to check all three signatures on that petition.


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Actually I've had quit a number of people tell me they had never thought about it before, that government marriage was just something they hadn't questioned, but it did make sense to question it.  So it's going well, thank you.  Opening minds to people questioning government is my goal.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Great! Let me know when we get to vote on it. I'm sure it will be really popular.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In your opinion, Avatar, and you don't speak for anybody but yourself, certainly not for God.
> ...



Do you think he speaks for God?  Or you?  I know I don't but I think I have a handle on what is godly; however, that's only for me.

We go by the Constitution, not errant scripture, kaz, in this country.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

You don't have a handle on anything, Fake, and you aren't qualified to speak for Americans. So please stop.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

Watch "Despicable Me" last night.  I like your role as Miss Hattie.  Fit you to a T.

You don't speak for anybody except the multitude of voices in your head, koshergrl.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 7, 2014)

I don't care if people fuck each other in the ass. Why expand the government to stop them?


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Note to self.  I'm only allowed to support things that you approve of as viable.  Got it.  How do you get your head through doorways?

As for me, the more people I can get to question things that government does and convince them that it's not inevitable the better.   I would rather make a small difference where I personally influence people than have your solution of just jumping into a tidal wave of socialism where your cause wins but you personally had no influence on anyone.


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I go by the Constitution, you don't.  But then I believe in what it says and you only believe it's a tool to be manipulated.  But that's not what I'm talking about.   I'm referring to your endless pronouncements that people's opinions don't matter.  Actually they do.  Even if they are wrong. If you believe opinions don't matter, your presence on a message board is certainly contradictory with that.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Geez....I'm being sincere and your panties are in a wad. Come on, get cracking with that legislation...I'm looking forward to the debates!


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Watch "Despicable Me" last night. I like your role as Miss Hattie. Fit you to a T.
> 
> You don't speak for anybody except the multitude of voices in your head, koshergrl.


 
I don't claim to speak for anyone, fake. You're the one who always does that.

It's indicative of mental illness, when one does it over and over like that. Particularly when combined with compulsive lying.

Now I will stand by and wait for the inevitable "You don't speak for anyone Koshergrl, you have mental illness". Your originality begins and ends with your ability to ape your betters.


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sincere?  I hope that was facetious.  Anyway, one of us has to wear the panties and it isn't going to be you, Butch.  Besides, they are really silky, though they tend to run up into my ...

... er ... I mean, next point ...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Yes, sincere. I sincerely want you to push for this legislation. Honest and truly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I believe in it to the bone, kaz, in ALL of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Watch "Despicable Me" last night. I like your role as Miss Hattie. Fit you to a T.
> ...



You are Ms. Hattie in mood and tone.  You lie even when you don't need too.


----------



## kaz (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I'll give your view all due consideration.  Ignore the flushing sound...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Watch "Despicable Me" last night. I like your role as Miss Hattie. Fit you to a T.
> ...




You kinda did when you called me as liar. I know I did not choose my attraction to women. I choose to act upon it, but the attractions are not a choice.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
I am not Maddie of Despicable Me...

I'm Lucy, from D.M.2:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izn9fCbkv1M"]Lipstick Taser - Despicable Me 2 HD - YouTube[/ame]

And fake is Gru.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

Yeah, koshergrl, you are Ms. Hattie from Despicable Me.  To the T.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

Nope, I am Lucy:

 
And you are the unfortunate, and dim witted, minion.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


1. 'Hope that helps', as in: hope that clarifies for you what we were talking about.

2. It had been my hope earlier to invite a few of the pro-Gay folk around here to conjure up some substantive reasons themselves, re: why Gays meet such rigorous opposition, not to serve those up myself - although I or others certainly can.

2. My own focus was not on Gay Marriage being detrimental to society; rather, my own emphasis in inviting folks to conjure-and-comment focused upon homosexuality at-large; not just the so-called 'marriage' component to the broader topic.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Nope, I am Lucy:
> 
> Despicable Me 2 Movie CLIP - Minion Fantasy (2013) - Steve Carell Sequel HD - YouTube
> 
> And you are the unfortunate, and dim witted, minion.



You are Hattie, and Lucie should be someone's daughter in law.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I don't care if people fuck each other in the ass. Why expand the government to stop them?



No one is trying to use government to stop them. we just dont want to expand government power to regulate their relationships.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Then why ignore the 9th and 10th amendment?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yeah, given that has nothing to do with gay marriage...


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 7, 2014)

*"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."*  - Jefferson Davis


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 7, 2014)

Marriage is a contract recognized by the state.  A wedding is a contract sanctified by the church.  Marriages can be dissolved, like any other contract, by the state.  That process is called divorce.  Some churches do not recognized divorce.  But then again, churches do not enforce the legal aspects of marriage: resolution of property rights, benefits granted by the state.

Marriages between heterosexuals do not always work out as planned.  Does divorce threaten an individual's faith if that individual is not involved in the divorce?  Does every heterosexual marriage affect every individual's faith?

Is the argument against same sex marriage nothing more than the exploitation of the anxieties held by those who have no business interfering with marriages other than their own?  Isn't it true that opposing marriage equality is hatred and fear of the unknown?

What real harm will befall all other marriages once marriage equality is the law of the land?  Where's the danger?  What's the threat?

Or is it good old fashioned gay bashing in the guise of faith?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> ...



Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits.  So it's not the same thing.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 7, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Is the argument against same sex marriage nothing more than the exploitation of the anxieties held by those who have no business interfering with marriages other than their own?



Perhaps for some.

My State amended its Constitution to forbid it.

That is the will of the our citizenry. Your citizenry may find different.

I, like many, love the individual ,but don't condone, agree or want to know about it otherwise.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits.



In States where their marriage is recognized they sure can.

Federal ones too.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



I was unaware marriages were for spousal benefits. Silly me.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

Spousal benefits are few and far between these days, anyway.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Now...as in California, there are some legally married gays in Utah..and some who are not allowed to get legally married.    That barn door is now open...can't close it.



The difference is that, in California, the state made marriage possible, and then declared it wasn't. In other words, it was purely a state issue. Here, on the other hand, an activist judge decided to shove a decision down the throat of the states using an interpretation  of law that the Supreme Court had previously refused to consider.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...



There is a difference between refusing to sanction a relationship and making it illegal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



If the judge was wrong on the grounds for the decision, which is, theoretically, possible, then the marriages were never legal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



You really need to think about what you are saying because you are 100% wrong.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




It has to do with marriage, period. Kaz wants to do away with all the cash and prizes that come with Civil Marriage. I support him in his endeavor.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I've been married for over two years. When do I get cash and prizes associated with it?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I was unaware that was what I said.  

Man marries woman, there are spousal benefits in terms of everything from insurance to death benefits etc...

Woman marries woman and there are often no spousal benefits. 

So the marriages are not the same in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



In Texas you can get married by telling people you are. This entitles you to all spousal benefits in that state. In California you need to get permission from the state, and it refuses to admit that common law marriages from other states are legal. 

What's your point?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



There are no marriage licenses issued in Texas?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it simply because you wanted it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Who is ignoring it? You don't understand their relationship to the 14th Amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Your faithful advocacy, no matter how sincere, is sincerely wrong.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



And blacks used to be subservient to whites due to skin color.  I'm sure there was some idiot like yourself saying that "it was defined" and I am just a messenger of that "truth".  

There are court decisions that are going through the process.  In 2004, the rate of states recognizing rights for the same sex couples was 0.00%.  Now in 2004, its upwards of 33%....  

Guess what, the messenger is now talking to you about "truth".


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


Was that when marriage was defined as an arraignment or when a dowry was required?  Or perhaps was it before certain rights and benefits protected under contract law?  Or maybe it was when minor children were bequeathed as part of a political agenda?

Do you believe that marriage as you know it has been locked in a static state, or has the institution of marriage been susceptible to social mores?


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 7, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > the fact that this comes out of Utah where polygamy was once practiced shows the slippery slope that may develop from this open-ended view of the 14th amendment.
> ...



your reply fails to answer a couple of my points. 

The word marriage is already historically self-defined. Why gay-marriage activists insist on rubbing their distortion of this definition in the face of religious folks who see it differently is beyond me.  

Marriage in government is really kind of a relic from the church-state of England. A state-religion the pilgrims came here to escape.

Government should not bestow tax benefits on anyone based on their relationship status.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You when you fail to recognize that the Constitution is a Goverment of limited jurisdiction and that it does not have the power to legislate in areas that hasn't been authority to. The 14th amendment didn't change that.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




This is why it's so easy to point and laugh at conservatives.  In one breath there is this steadfast clinging to what happened literally in this case, "thousands of years ago".  Several things were defined at the same time.  But somehow conservatives are eager in some cases to cast _some_ definitions aside when it doesn't fit in with their 20th century bigotry, paranoia, superstition, and republican dogma.  

Just hilarious. 

If some of society can rightly evolve from the time when women were saying "obey" in their marriage vows, surely there can be evolution elsewhere.  There was a time when we had debtor's prisons too...we evolved from that since it became pretty clear to merchants that wanted to be paid that a debtor in jail isn't going to be making a lot of scratch...  Maybe we should go back to that????


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys



Marriage is what society wants it to be. A marriage between a man and woman is more important simply in the interest of the children. But who the fuck are you and me to tell a gay person what to do?


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


 
Thank goodness Quaker women took an adamant stand against the practice of imprisoning entire families, eh?


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys



Saying something must be, because that's the way its been, is a fallacy of logic.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys
> ...



Some things are true no matter how much you would rather they not be. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Simply because groups of people want to redefine it doesn't mean these new relationships are marriage.


----------



## Noomi (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys



Marriage in the US used to be between a man and a woman of the same color, but times have changed, haven't they?


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the bible does it say that you cannot conduct business with someone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.
> ...



This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...





Avatar4321 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


Does your opinion justify denial of access to contract law by sober, mature, tax paying citizens?  Justify your opposition as something other than hatred and fear of homosexuality.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Some people like to talk about how many strike outs their pitcher had instead of the final score; especially when they lost.  You sound like a loser.  It's called a scoreboard for a reason.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys
> ...



It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.  We need more fish.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...


It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...


No.  A Justice of the Peace is an officer of the court.  Justice is blind, not faith driven.

Occasionally, we may find some backwoods hick self proclaimed "minister" who will hide behind his misinterpretation of his "faith" and deny marriage equality, but that does not preclude the couple from seeking a civil ceremony.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



So a JoP whose faith dictates whites shouldn't marry blacks is justified in not performing interracial marriages? Jesus actually spoke against divorce. Should a Christian JoP be able to use his faith and not marry divorced people?


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 7, 2014)

Jughead said:


> It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event.



It is if it's a Jetta or a Prius.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...


I would surely not renounce my faith because of my job. Looks like the only option in most cases would unfortunately be for the justice of the peace to to resign. Here is a similar case:



> Judge Reprimanded for Refusing to Officiate Same-Sex Weddings for Religious Reasons
> 
> Thurston County, Washington Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor has been formally reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Commission for his refusal to officiate at same-sex weddings. Tabor gave &#8220;philosophical and religious reasons&#8221; for his refusal.
> 
> ...



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...te-At-Same-Sex-Weddings-For-Religious-Reasons


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...


Most of us have no issues with interracial marriage and divorce. However, under these exceptional circumstances, the JoP would have no alternative but to resign from his job.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...



Justices of the peace are not obligated to perform any marriages at all. They perform the ones they choose to perform, as judges do. They aren't "on call" workers who exist to marry people at the pleasure of those people.

Nor do they grant divorces.

So your example is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with reality. Try again.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 7, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...


I agree that ideally Justices of the Peace/Judges should ideally be allowed to select the marriage ceremonies they want to perform or none if desired. Unfortunately sometimes the left wing media gets involved and a frenzy erupts.

Judge Reprimanded for Refusing to Officiate Same-Sex Weddings for Religious Reasons



> Judge Reprimanded for Refusing to Officiate Same-Sex Weddings for Religious Reasons
> 
> Tabor responded to reporters that his opposition to same-sex marriage was personal and related to his religious views. He said he believed that because judges are permitted, but not required, to officiate at weddings, he had the right to refuse marriages he was not comfortable supporting as long as he could find a replacement. However, the media frenzy over Tabors refusal to officiate at same-sex weddings led him to announce that he would now refuse all weddings.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

They are not obligated to perform. To my understanding, they never have been.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys
> ...


And now the country's Gay Lobby, with some support by the moral-relativism -favoring segment of the LibProg political faction, have pushed the country too far.

The question seems to be whether some of those recent 'gains' by Gays will be allowed to remain in force or whether they will eventually be overturned.

The 3% of Gays in this country are currently circumventing the will of much of the 97% of Straights in this country, and I find myself wondering whether that will prove to be sustainable in the long run.

Pro-Gay advocates plead 'Constitutionality' and smugly say 'Yes'.

Others contemplate more conservative re-interpretations of the Constitution and say "I wouldn't be so sure about that."

Faux analogies to the racially-focused civil rights movement of the 1960s notwithstanding.

Either way, the battle is still underway, and the outcome is not as certain as some might think.

The public relations disasters (_massive mainstream popular backlash_) experienced by the Gay Lobby in 2012 (Chick-Fil-A) and 2013 (A&E) demonstrate that this is so.

Should prove interesting to watch, either way.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 8, 2014)

How is two men marrying harm you???


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Matthew said:


> How is two men marrying harm you???


It may prove more helpful to ask the question...

Why is homosexuality - its sexual practices, its lifestyle, its behaviors and mannerisms - viewed as detrimental and poisonous to society, in many quarters?

It's not *JUST* - nor even primarily - gay marriage.

It's homosexuality at-large.

Gay marriage is only one minor aspect of the broader range of objections to homosexuality, albeit one of the more visible ones in recent times.

Don't ask why people object to Gay marriage.

Rather, ask why people object to homosexuality in general.

If you want to get to the bottom of the problem, that's where the real battle is going to be fought.

You can't legislate how people feel.

And you can't keep battering them with charges of bigotry, intolerance, etc., for feeling the way they do, nor for insisting upon their freedom to express such feelings.

Sooner or later they'll turn on you, and things will get ugly - on the legislative and constitutional-interpretation and cultural fronts.

And when they represent 97% of the population, and you represent 3%, continuing to poke the bear with a sharp stick is not _brightest-crayon-in-the-box_ thinking.

Just sayin'...


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



When marriage became an action of the government instead of the church, religious people lost the ability to define anything about it. The government is now in control of defining marriage.


----------



## Noomi (Jan 8, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...



It will happen, either way, so you better get used to it.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Noomi said:


> "..._It will happen, either way, so you better get used to it._"


Oh, vile, dishonorable surrender... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Somehow, I think this fight is just beginning, rather than approaching the end-game.

The next few years will tell that story.

Especially in the year or two following the swearing-in of a new Administration in Washington, although we'll have to wait until after January 20, 2017 to learn whether any high-level change-of-direction is actually going to materialize.

If a way is found to spin or interpret the Constitution differently, in connection with the legitimizing of homosexuality, the entire game could change again in a heartbeat.

And there are enough people opposed - actively and passively and even covertly - to homosexuality in general and to the Gay Lobby Agenda particularly - so as to make it likely that a great deal more Constitutional Exploration (in this context) is in our future.

It's what happens when you push The People too far.

Interesting times.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



And yet Jesus actually spoke out against divorce, unlike homosexuality so please help me understand how it is that you have "no problem" with divorced people but turn off the TV if it gets the ghey on it? 

Luke 16:18_ Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"_

Mark 10:2-12

_2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?

3 What did Moses command you? he replied.

4 They said, Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.

5 It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law, Jesus replied. 6 But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.[a] 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,* 8 and the two will become one flesh.[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.*_


----------



## Kosh (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*

And the far left racist makes the far left propaganda posts to try and back their racist stance.

BTW: Being "GAY" is not a race.*


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > How is two men marrying harm you???
> ...



Oh wow...so you don't just want to keep the gheys from marrying, you want to round 'em up and put 'em on an island. Or do you want to exterminate like Russia and Uganda? 

And despite being asked repeatedly, you've still yet to detail this supposed societal harm. Saying the gheys are "harmful" over and over doesn't make your case. Icky isn't harmful.

By the way Rip Van Winkle, "most people" don't feel the way you do about the gheys.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...


*

You still haven't explained how pointing out the concept of separate but equal is racist but perhaps that is a side effect of your odd Tourettes. 

Nobody said gay is a race, but sexual orientation is an innate trait and the discrimination faced has startling parallels.*


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Is the flushing sound your proposed legislation going down the drain? What would that look like, your legislation? Are you removing all reference to marriage from government documents or going the cheap and easy way and just ending the tax breaks?


----------



## Kosh (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*

And you still have to drag up race in your so called debates, yet refuse to admit that you really are a racist.

Then again the far left is known for using the race card every chance they get then denying it.

Actually you keep associating gay marriage to interracial marriage so yes you are claimi8ng that being gay is a race. Time to fess up.

It is no different than those that claimed Hitler was a racist for what he did to the Jews.

Civil Unions provide the same rights other than access to social Security. It has no real difference other than that. 

Why make a big deal out of using the term "marriage" unless it is about revenge and making the church pay for calling you an Obamanation of nature.

Like I have pointed out it is not about "civil" rights it is about revenge and punishing the church and making them accept you. Just fess up to it, that is the real reason and that is why the church pushes back.*


----------



## Jughead (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*
I regards to divorce, I am happily married, and have been for over a decade. However, I have not ever attended a divorce ceremony. I don't even think there are any official divorce ceremonies? In our society, we have gay themed events (like gay parades in SF), however it's hard to find any divorce themed event. That's why it's a non issue.*


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...


*

Okay, so you don't turn the TV off if there are gay people on it, just if they are getting married?*


----------



## Kosh (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Are you going to lobby the far left to make it equal and fair?

A man with children pays more in taxes than a female with children making the same amount of money. 

And what makes you think that being "married" get all these tax breaks that civil unions don't get?


----------



## Kosh (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*

Someone has been watching to much Bravo channel.*


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...



Well since the government defines the poverty level in this country, let's just define everyone as rich through government decree. That will end poverty in the country overnight. 

Needless to say marriage is never going to include same sex relationships. Nor will cats become poor. Nor will squares become round by calling them circles. Nor will the poor become rich just because the government says so.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*
I will not participate in any gay themed event, however I still interact will everyone. I get along with everyone. As for TV, same thing, I will watch a movie no problem if some of the actors are gay, assuming it's not a gay themed film.*


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



I'm going to tell you what I tell my kids...honey, until you know what the word means, you shouldn't use it indiscriminately. 

*rac·ism*
&#712;r&#257;&#716;siz&#601;m
noun
1.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.​
So, pointing out the parallels between the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gay and lesbian couples wanting to marry is not racism. 




> Civil Unions provide the same rights other than access to social Security. It has no real difference other than that.



No they don't and I have already provided you links that support that. It's not "just" Social Security. You are also skipping over that whole separate but equal issue that was found to be unconstitutional. Saying straights get one thing and gays get another runs afoul of that. Now, Civil Unions for all would not and I fully support that. You? 



> Why make a big deal out of using the term "marriage" unless it is about revenge and making the church pay for calling you an Obamanation of nature.
> 
> Like I have pointed out it is not about "civil" rights it is about revenge and punishing the church and making them accept you. Just fess up to it, that is the real reason and that is why the church pushes back.



The church has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage. If you don't want "the gheys" to use the term marriage, change it for everyone.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



What does "gay themed" mean? Does a gay character makes it "gay themed"?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Needless to say marriage is never going to include same sex relationships.



Marriage already does. We've been marrying in churches for decades and now we get to legally marry in over a dozen states. Ship has sailed.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Kaz is the one that wants to get the gubmit out of marriage, ask him what his legislative plans are. 

I'm going to need an actual link for your claim that a male parent pays more taxes than a female parent. 

Married people get tax breaks, darling. Didn't realize this was news to some people. On average married people pay out 29% of their combined income while a single person at the same amount pays 35% on average.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


No, the actor alone will not make it a gay themed film. A film like "Another Gay Movie" would be considered a gay themed film, even if the actors are not gay. As for gay actors or performers, I have no issues. For instance, I was a fan of Freddy Mercury, but I only listened to his music. I did not watch him perform in any gay themed event (such as a gay parade, or a gay wedding ceremony).


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> "...Oh wow...so you don't just want to keep the gheys from marrying, you want to round 'em up and put 'em on an island. Or do you want to exterminate like Russia and Uganda?..."


More Gay-Lobby hyperbole. Pure invention, 180-degrees out from what had been said. Disingenuous. Pure horseshit.



> "..._And despite being asked repeatedly, you've still yet to detail this supposed societal harm. Saying the gheys are 'harmful' over and over doesn't make your case. Icky isn't harmful_..."


How can you hope to counterpoint the real underlying reasons for opposition to homosexuality unless you understand those reasons?

How can you hope to understand those reasons unless you can objectively identify and contemplate those reasons on your own?

My recital (_or, indeed, recital by anyone_) will merely put you into instinctive counter-argument mode, without giving those reasons the serious reflection required in order to effectively deal with them.

You need to conjure those up on your own, and weigh their merits, and see the other side of the argument, before you can hope to sustain a long-term resistance to what is almost certainly coming as blowback in the next few years.

As to 'my case'... I have no case to make... I have no dog in this 'fight' - except as an amused observer - someone who laughs at the way the Gays shoot themselves in the foot time-and-again, without regard for the blowback that is coming their way.

*I* know why many Straight Folk don't want homosexuality to be legitimized - in terms of detriment to and poisoning of society - there are several reasons, some of which should not be very difficult to conjure.

But that's for you to do, if you want to continue to hold your own beyond the spectrum of short-term victories that you've chalked-up so far over the objections of much of mainstream America. When you figure it out, you'll be better prepared to address those objections. But it requires effort on your part.

I am not sympathetic to your cause, nor do I have any interest in doing your homework for you.

Suffice it to say, that mainstream America sees you in a different and far less favorable light than you allow yourselves to believe, and that it has seen its elected legislators and political leadership kowtow to the Gay Lobby, and that mainstream America is not happy over such developments.

It is extremely difficult to win people over in such visceral matters if you don't feel (you don't have to agree with) what they're feeling.

And you can't do that unless those thoughts occur to you, rather than simply hearing a recital by someone else, a recital that you will instinctively move to counter-argue without letting it sink-in that this is primarily an emotional issue, and dealing with it on that level.

The reasons have to occur to you, without help from the outside, if they are to be of any use to you in weathering the storm that may be coming.


> "..._By the way Rip Van Winkle, "most people" don't feel the way you do about the gheys_..."


I would not have resorted to juvenile labeling like that in my dealings with you, but I'm not all that surprised to be on the receiving end of a bit of hostility from Gay Folk and their sympaticos merely for expressing a contrary opinion about their practices, etc.

Denigrating the opposition is not unique to the Gay Lobby but the Gay Lobby has a nasty reputation for going overboard in that very department. Typical.

More to the point, though... you put a lot of faith in 'surveys' and 'polls'.

I submit that public reaction to the 2012 Chick-Fil-A incident and the 2013 A&E incident are probably a better true barometer than some of the surveys currently extant.

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong about some of this.

But my Spidey-Sense tells me that I'm probably on the right track.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



I did not say gay actor, I said a gay character. Will a gay character in a film or show cause you not to watch that show or movie?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > "...Oh wow...so you don't just want to keep the gheys from marrying, you want to round 'em up and put 'em on an island. Or do you want to exterminate like Russia and Uganda?..."
> ...



Right...the polls are wrong, Romney wins. 

Come on dude, you're trying to ascribe a societal harm in my existence...not that it is even possible but to what end? You're not going to get rid of the gheys and you're not going to stop them from legally marrying so what is the point you are attempting to make?

Public opinion is clearly not in your favor, a few people eating crappy fried food and watching reality shows aside. Gays are no longer viewed by a majority of Americans the way YOU view them. You are in the minority...but I won't try to take away your right to legally marry.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...



So you are going to force it on the people regardless of what the people think? And here i thought we lived in a free nation.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Nothing is being forced on anyone. You don't have to marry a member of the same sex if you don't want to.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You're free to think what you want.  You're not free to impose your views on everyone.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*

And yet when I speak out about how I think it's a shame someone gets a divorce, I'm told I am a phoney and don't really care. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

The verses you mentioned answer your own question. Christians can allowe divorce because the Lord made provision for it even though it's not part of His plan. He did this because of human weakness.

Homosexual relationships, however, have never been sanctioned by God. They are, in fact, clearly denounced, even in the verses you are citing.




			For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
		
Click to expand...


This is the union God has ordained.*


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*

There is nothing innate about one's sexual preference. And to claim that any discrimination has faced startling parallels is an insult to any Black American alive. Can you name any point in history where people who practice homosexuality have been made slaves? Can you even name a point in the history of the world when gays have been slaves? How about lynched on a regular basis?

You want to know what your biggest problem with your argument is? It's obvious when someone is black. You can tell by looking at him or her. You can't tell anyone is gay by looking at them. How the heck are gays going to recieve parallel treatment to any race when you can't identify them?*


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> "...Right...the polls are wrong, Romney wins..."


Look at the tremendous popular blowback associated with both the Chick-Fil-A and A&E incidents (_including the sudden surge of Duck merchandise right before Christmas_) and tell me there's not something wrong with those polls. But... it's your funeral... suit yourself... go ahead and continue to delude yourself that the other 97% is on your side.  Such thinking paves the way for substantive reversals when the Opposition gets its next turn at-bat.



> "..._Come on dude, you're trying to ascribe a societal harm in my existence...not that it is even possible but to what end? You're not going to get rid of the gheys and you're not going to stop them from legally marrying so what is the point you are attempting to make?_..."


Yes. I am saying that many people perceive that homosexuality is detrimental and poisonous to society.

Nobody is talking about getting rid of Gays.

Enjoy your recent victories (_such as Gay Marriage_) while they last. I, and a great many others, are not as certain as you, that those victories are a permanent state of affairs.



> "..._Public opinion is clearly not in your favor, a few people eating crappy fried food and watching reality shows aside_..."


This is a circular argument, bringing us back to the validity of polls versus evidence of people voting with their dollars.



> "..._Gays are no longer viewed by a majority of Americans the way YOU view them. You are in the minority...but I won't try to take away your right to legally marry._"


Again, back to the validity of polls. I happen to think that you're in for a nasty surprise after January 20, 2017, but, of course, I could be wrong. You had better hope that I am.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Needless to say marriage is never going to include same sex relationships.
> ...



Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage doesn't make it so. Any more than calling one dollar $10 is going to make the guy at the shop $9.

You can immitate marriage all you want. You can pretend as if you are married. But you aren't. Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman by definition. You cannot change the definition and think you have the same thing just because you call it the same name. Reality doesn't change just because you want to lie to yourself about it.

Homosexual relationships aren't going to make you any more happy if you legally sanction them. You're still going to be just as miserable.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Oh so you aren't trying to force society to legally recognize gay relationships now? if so, then how exactly is it going to happen either way if the people oppose you at the ballot box?

Or did you really think trying to change the argument was going to justify your desire to compell people to accept it?

The very fact that you feel the need to change the argument tells me you know you've lost.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Then you probably shouldn't claim that your way is going to be imposed on society regardless of what the people want.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 8, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Are you going to lobby the far left to make it equal and fair?
> 
> A man with children pays more in taxes than a female with children making the same amount of money.



Could you link to this difference in tax rates for equal situations based on gender?

Let's say you have a single man with two children and a female with two children.  They earn the same amount, live in the same place, have the same expenses, etc... to that there is a apples to apples comparison.

So can you link to a government tax structure that would charge them different tax rates?




Kosh said:


> And what makes you think that being "married" get all these tax breaks that civil unions don't get?



Some examples of tax breaks that civil unions don't get:

1.  Tax free transfer of property to a living spouse only occurs for Civil Marriage, not Civil Unions.

2.  Estate tax exemptions for inheritance by a spouse apply only to Civil Marriages and not to Civil Unions.

3.  The tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that.  (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple.  When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold.  No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

4.  Employees are liable for the taxes on the employer portions of health care insurance as income in Civil Unions, those in a Civil Marraige to not pay taxes as it is not considered "income" for us.  (For Civilly Married couples, the employer portion of Health Insurance is tax free, however on plans where the significant other is not a legal spouse - then the federal government charges that portion as income and is liable for taxation.)​

Those are four off the top of my head.


>>>>


----------



## candycorn (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Maybe what "the people want" and what you want are two different things???  

How else do you explain the 0-33+ percent increase in people living in states that recognize the rights of same sex couples since 2004?  

Feel free to take to the streets and fight for your rights to discriminate.  Maybe you guys can start in Selma....


----------



## candycorn (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Seeing equal protection under the law makes me happy; almost as happy as you are when you applaud discrimination.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



No more than interracial marriage was "forced" on the populace...despite truly overwhelming opposition.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



You know what all the above means? Nothing. I still get to file joint taxes with my legal spouse, she still gets her military dependent ID card, etc. Your opinion on the "validity" of my marriage and $5 will get you coffee at Starbucks.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



*in·nate
*i&#712;n&#257;t
adjective
1. inborn; natural.

Yup, fits the definition. 

Bet You Can't Tell the Difference Between These Interracial Marriage and Gay Marriage Quotes

_"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.
_
Gay or interracial?

_This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
_

Gay or interracial?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



False equivalency there, bucko.

"Imposing" the 14th in the matter of marriage is constitutional.  Your way violates it.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I don't get this whole line.  I say what I think.  I don't limit myself to only thinking things that are going to pass the legislature.  I don't get why anyone would think like you do.  And I don't see you holding yourself or anyone else to this standard.  These posts that I'm not going to get my way are just spam.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch is now beating the official drum of what s/he knows is the hinge of the pending SCOTUS argument for gays: "we are born this way!".

Except for the identical twin girls I know who were raised by a butch and femme lesbian couple.  One twin is a lesbian, the other straight.  Oops there goes Seawytch's entire premise out the window.

More likely sexual orientation is learned.  Let's check in with the scientists on the question, since in Court, they're going to be cited or even cross examined:



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...





> Mayo Clinic 2007 http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...


*Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review  *[with roughly 350 professional and peer reviewed citations supporting its conclusion that sexual orientation is learned by cues from an individual's environment...even to the point of desiring cadavers for sex if conditioned properly.]



> *Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review*
> James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
> Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001 http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf



Sorry Seawytch, the urban dictionary and the rainbow alliance aren't credible sources to cite for the innate vs habituated argument.  Might want to try the Mayo Clinic, Clinical Psychiatrists and the Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology in Quebec instead...


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch is now beating the official drum of what s/he knows is the hinge of the pending SCOTUS argument for gays: "we are born this way!".
> 
> Except for the identical twin girls I know who were raised by a butch and femme lesbian couple.  One twin is a lesbian, the other straight.  Oops there goes Seawytch's entire premise out the window.
> 
> More likely sexual orientation is learned.  Let's check in with the scientists on the question, since in Court, they're going to be cited or even cross examined:



"Born this way" doesn't necessarily mean it's as straight forward as a gene. Particularly since gay/straight is not just binary, it's a curve.  There are levels of both gayness and straightness.  Some people are solidly gay, some are solidly straight, some more just lean one way or the other.  That one set of twins is one and the other and they have the same genes just means they both could have gone either way.

Furthermore, even for those who lean one way or the other and the gay/straight is influenced by the environment, there is absolutely no reason to believe it's just the example they see overtly regarding straight/gay, it would be a combination of environmental factors.  It could be that in this case that one going one way would influence the other to be the other.

Life and cause and effect are just rarely that simple.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 8, 2014)

kaz and sil's dislike of the culture means nothing to SCOTUS.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




So no legislation, just talk? You walk around as a legally married guy telling your friends about the evils of Gubmit Marriage with no actual goal of limiting it? Bummer.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Saying my opinion on a message board.  Wow, you nailed me... 



Seawytch said:


> You walk around as a legally married guy telling your friends about the evils of Gubmit Marriage with no actual goal of limiting it? Bummer.



Yes, I've also told you I'm married to a conservative Republican and it's a big deal to her. She knows my view, she knows if she agreed that I would end our government marriage.  Her answer is, um, no. You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage is and I should just ignore her feelings and follow my political ideology.   Tough noogies to her.   That isn't how straight marriages work.  At least not successful ones.  We just had our 25th anniversary in November, I'll stick with the straight approach to marriage.  You are making a good case that you're not ready for it yet.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 8, 2014)

No one, Kaz, has said this "You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage" thus you are lying.

Step off.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one, Kaz, has said this "You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage" thus you are lying.
> 
> Step off.



Actually Seawytch keeps saying that and I explained her saying that in my post.  If you disagree, address what I said, don't just say, "no it's not."

Seawytch and I have discussed this extensively and he's repeatedly informed me that if my political ideology is that marriage should not be a government function then I should ignore my wife's feelings and divorce her (legally).  My wife knows my views,  She is OK with my view, she doesn't care that I tell people I'm against government marriage, she is OK that I think we should legally divorce.  She isn't going to agree to it.  I look at it and it's way more important to her than me, so I do it her way.  I get other things my way.  Seawytch just keeps saying if I'm against government marriage, then I can't be in one, she doesn't care about my wife and expects me not to either.

The best marriages are not build on across the board compromise.  They are build on compromising on some issues and both people getting their way on others.

BTW, if you learned to quote, people would not need to just find your replies by accident.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one, Kaz, has said this "You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage" thus you are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Step off.




No worries Jake. I know it's Kaz trying to justify his hypocrisy on legal marriage. He's the "reluctant hypocrite" because his wife made him.


----------



## J.E.D (Jan 8, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...



Yep. But thems are big wurds fer Stevie. Wait until you witness his and the USMB Wingnut Brigade's meltdown when the SC inevitably rule in favor of marriage equality in Utah, and then the entire country. That will be good times, good times indeed.


----------



## Jughead (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


If his being gay is the punchline of the movie, then I would have to answer yes. Otherwise, if the movie has no explicit scenes, then no.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one, Kaz, has said this "You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage" thus you are lying.
> ...



Again, a road we've traveled down.  Per our prior discussions and repeated here, I've said my value is that if something matters more to my wife than me, then I'm going to do it her way.  She does the same for me on other topics.  This matters more to her.  With your obsession with having a government marriage, frankly, you should get her view more than I do.

So again you repeat, even if something is more important to my wife, I should demand my way or I'm a "hypocrite."  So again, you're saying that gay marriage isn't the same.  You're going to think of yourself first and only consider your partner when you agree with her.  Shame on you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one, Kaz, has said this "You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage" thus you are lying   Step off.
> ...



I know the left and the center and responsible conservatives have hypocrites, as well, but such as kaz and Ms Hattie (koshergrl) and some of the others from the wing nut brigade on the far right and truly amazing in their self deceit.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 8, 2014)

Marriage is whatever your State says it is.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I hope you're not married.  If you're divorced, I think we know why.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 8, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Marriage is whatever your State says it is.




But recognized in all 50. Sure cousins and 16 year olds can only marry in a few, but it's recognized in all. All of DOMA needs repealing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I have been married twice.  My first wife died after four children had been borne to us.  I was most fortunate to marry a second time to a woman my children have come to love.  The oldest daughter has died.  We have know joy and grief, laughter and tears, from the light into the shade and back.

kaz, I hope your laugh may be half as full as mine, for you will be incredibly blessed.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I wish nothing but the best for you and wish what you've endured on no one.  I'm glad you feel blessed and wish you always to feel that way.

So tell me based on what you just said, you seriously agree with Seawytch that it's "hypocrisy" that I don't get a government divorce from my wife which would give me merely satisfaction that I am following my political ideology, but as a conservative Christian would be devastating to her?

My value is if something is clearly more important to her, then that is what I do.  And that value is more important to me than ending government marriage.  So explain the hypocrisy you were agreeing with her on, you sure don't sound like someone who views marriage that way that sorry babe, I'm not doing it if I don't agree with it.

She has said BTW that she's OK with government getting out of the marriage business, but until they do, she wants to have it.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch is now beating the official drum of what s/he knows is the hinge of the pending SCOTUS argument for gays: "we are born this way!".
> ...



Don't bother trying to debate Silly.  She's a one-note troll, basically a human spambot.


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jan 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Definitions can, and do, change. What was rich in the '50s is not the same level as rich today. What was the standard for electrical wiring in the past is not the same today. The word "gay" used to mean happy, and it's now a term for a homosexual.

The majority of voters in over a dozen states disagree with your outdated definition, and have changed it as a result. Whether you condone this change or not is irrelevant. America is, and will continue, shifting towards including same sex couples into the definition of "Marriage".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Thank you.  To Seawytch: I think you are misrepresenting what she is saying.

As long as the government is in the marriage business (I prefer the government to do civil unions and churches to do private marriages), yes, same sex couples should have the same benefits as do you and I.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 8, 2014)

Yes, words change meanings.

GAY today means Good As You.


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jan 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Exactly. If the government only did "civil unions", and "marriage" was a function unique to the church, then this entire argument would be flipped upside down.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



She has stated and repeated that I should divorce my wife because I oppose government marriage.   I've made the points that it's far more important to my wife many times, she blows it off and says I should divorce her anyway.  I am misunderstanding and misstating nothing.


----------



## kaz (Jan 8, 2014)

Wacky Quacky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



There should be no government "civil unions."  I don't just oppose the word marriage with regard to government.  Government should not be involved in this.  If a couple want to back up their marriage with a contract, that's for them to specify.  But civil unions are just an end around the word.  It should not be a function of government.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 9, 2014)

kaz said:


> There should be no government "civil unions."  I don't just oppose the word marriage with regard to government.  Government should not be involved in this.  If a couple want to back up their marriage with a contract, that's for them to specify.  But civil unions are just an end around the word.  It should not be a function of government.




The government has to be involved and will continue to be involved however all this shakes out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 9, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You are misrepresenting her statement.  And, yes, government has to be involved in the public interest, whether by civil union or marriage, which has to be open to all citizens equally.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 9, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Now you're just making shit up in a fit of pique. I never told you to divorce your wife so stop acting the drama queen. 

Being a reluctant hypocrite is still a hypocrite. You speak against the idea of gays having access to the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you enjoy...even if you don't like enjoying them. It's still hypocritical whether you feel you were "forced" into it or not.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, words change meanings.
> 
> GAY today means Good As You.


Gay today still means 'on the outside, looking in', and probably always will.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 9, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, words change meanings.
> ...



Right...'cause all the polls that show majority support for marriage equality are lying, right? Kinda like the polls that showed Romney losing, they lied too, right? 

I don't feel that I'm "on the outside looking in". Certainly not now that my legal marriage is treated exactly like yours in over a dozen states. Now, if we can just get the rest of DOMA repealed...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 9, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, words change meanings.
> ...



Majority of Americans now will say that it is you, Kondor, looking in from the outside.


----------



## SwimExpert (Jan 9, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, words change meanings.
> ...



No, no, you've got it all wrong.  Lesbians do it on the outside.  Gay dude do it very much on the inside.  Actually, even lesbians do it on the inside a little bit too.  They just use assisting devices most of the time.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No, they won't. The majority isn't represented by the homo bloc, and the majority understands that homosexuality is a deviance, and a choice.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


We don't have to look much further than the popular clamor in support of Chick-Fil-A and Phil Robertson (the A&E incident, including the sudden flood of Duck merchandise sales immediately after the story broke) to begin to suspect that there's something not quite right with those polls, after all.

The Gay Lobby (primary stakeholders, and their sympaticos) have never had a good feel for when they're pushing the other 97% too far, so, it comes as no surprise that many of those on the 3% side of the aisle will cling to sampling polls as prima facie evidence that most of the 97% are on their side, and that they haven't reached and exceeded the limits of the goodwill and benefit of a doubt formerly extended to them.

If one cannot see the tolerance threshold, one cannot understand when one has gone beyond it.

The 3% will figure it out, and come to understand that they've crossed that line, but only long after the 97% reach that conclusion. Such is the arrogant, self-aggrandizing, smug and self-congratulatory nature of the Gay Lobby beast. A nature that engenders amusement and little sympathy from the 97%, when the 3% are handed a massive public relations defeat like the Robertson/A&E incident.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 9, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Yeah, actually we are. You know why? Because you simply cannot insulate yourselves from "those people" no matter how much you want to...because we end up being YOUR family members. 

U.S. Acceptance of Gay/Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 9, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Now he'll show up and say about me exactly what I've said about him, and pretend that he's being original. He might follow me to another thread to write it, in the hopes that nobody notices.



Miss Hattie/koshergrl is right: she follows me around.  And she is wrong again: U.S. Acceptance of Gay/Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal

and for our entertainment:


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 9, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



How'd that chicken boycott work out for you?

Duck Dynasty?

How about Prop 8 in Cali? 

The majority is sick of you. The majority isn't interested in your parades, in your public displays, in your political push to bring depravity to the market place. 

People would be more inclined to take you seriously and consider you normal if you didn't deny reality and lie continually.


----------



## Barb (Jan 9, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



What a change in attitude from the Lily Tomlin thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...lin-marries-longtime-partner.html#post8425210

http://www.usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=8425244


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 9, 2014)

No one cares what homosexuals do privately.   Keep it in your own bedroom.  How's that for a concept?


----------



## kaz (Jan 9, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > There should be no government "civil unions."  I don't just oppose the word marriage with regard to government.  Government should not be involved in this.  If a couple want to back up their marriage with a contract, that's for them to specify.  But civil unions are just an end around the word.  It should not be a function of government.
> ...



Did you have any content with that, or were you just here to demonstrate the logical fallacy of begging the question?


----------



## kaz (Jan 9, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You said that repeatedly, stop being the drama queen for getting called on it.

And to say that following my values is hypocrisy because you can hair split and word parse is to eliminate all meaning of the word.  If you believe in following the rules of the road, but speed to avoid an accident, it's hypocrisy!  Bull crap.  Values are prioritized.  I'm tired of this stupid discussion with you, which is all I ever have with you because all you care about are gays and making every discussion and government policy a plan to validate your relationship and give you door prizes.

Have a good one.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 9, 2014)

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could reason on your own. Perhaps I was mistaken.


----------



## kaz (Jan 9, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I love it.  So I said that we don't need government involvement in marriage.  You replied yes we do.  And from that I was supposed to say, oh, you're right, I guess we do.

That is why I like debating liberals.  You're a hoot.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 9, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




We're following our values by seeking legal civil marriage just like your wife. Do you hold her in as much contempt as you do gays that want to be married?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 9, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> How'd that chicken boycott work out for you?
> 
> Duck Dynasty?
> 
> ...



Good points koshergrl.  You mean the majority are sick of this?  I can't imagine why...


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 9, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > How'd that chicken boycott work out for you?
> ...


I'd you're willing to stand by anecdotal evidence about the gay community, are you willing to defend heterosexual porn as virtuous?  Or ar you just engaging. In some good old fashioned gay bashing due to utter foolishness and ignorance?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Care to discuss the venue in context?  As in, the porn act you're seeing reinacted in the picture was in broad daylight, in the Heartland, down Main Street in the presence of children who came to see what all the bright rainbow colors were all about.  You know how children like rainbow colors right?  Quite the lure for them.

There's the context...

...And in related news... Harvey Milk is the icon of the LGBT movement "across the nation and the world"...


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 10, 2014)

kaz said:


> That is why I like debating liberals.




You should go find a liberal and debate it. Have fun.




As for me, I guess I need to apologize for assuming you weren't an idiot. 

Ok, get your crayons ready: Marriage is necessarily a public contract. Otherwise, the 'agreement' would have no force of law and one party - typically the woman - would be left without recourse in the event that the agreement didn't work out. Any children resulting from said agreement would be likewise vulnerable and this would be to the detriment to society as a whole. Therefore, the government must be involved in order to enforce the terms of the contract like any other. Nothing necessarily relating to religion or political affiliation.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



What's the context for this at Mardi Gras?


----------



## Kosh (Jan 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Wow talk about an extreme comparison.

Definitely a far left zombie.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 10, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



So you don't think condemning an entire group based on an individuals behaviors at a party is a good idea. That's good.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> What's the context for this at Mardi Gras?



Mardi Gras is a place where parents know is going to be a fleshy adult party, largely in these later years influenced by the rainbow cultural movement actually, usually getting bawdy as the evening approaches and is near all the bars.  If parents bring their kids, they should get a visit from child protective services the next day if spotted.

The gay pride parade is held on Main street in the picture, in the Heartland, in the middle of the day.  Where Mardi Gras is just a wayward inebriated bacchanal where people wake up the next day usually hung over and very ashamed of what they can't remember they did the night before, _the gay pride parade is a parade of sober and expressed values_.   Where people are showing the world "this is what we are proud of every single day and want to encourage you to be proud of too, and to teach your children to be proud of".  It is a promotion of cultural values while Mardi Gras is a temporary and regrettable suspension of them.

There's the context.  There's the difference.  And it's mainly the message to kids "here's something to be proud of" instead of "oops, honey cover the kids eyes, there's another drunk party slut in New Orleans showing her boobs".


----------



## bodecea (Jan 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > What's the context for this at Mardi Gras?
> ...



Ah.....then a LOT of CPS workers are going to be busy.   Go to any Mardi Gras or watch it on Live Cam...there are tons and tons of parents with their young children there.  And yet, somehow, this isn't much of an issue....until just now...........hmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Ah.....then a LOT of CPS workers are going to be busy.   Go to any Mardi Gras or watch it on Live Cam...there are tons and tons of parents with their young children there.  And yet, somehow, this isn't much of an issue....until just now...........hmmmmmmmmmm.



There are "tons and tons" of people who cheat on their taxes too.  Doesn't legitimize the activity by the number of people doing it, or catching on socially that "brining your kids to Mardi Gras is the thing to do".  Your "logic' is that if enough stupid people do something, it is thereby legitimate.

Lots of sad people are overeating and/or popping vicadin, Xanax etc.  Is that the "new legitimate"?

1. Mardis Gras is a regrettable temporary suspension of values before the chaste activity of self denial of that Holy Week.  The lesson is: suspend your base animal behavior for one day so that for the rest of the year you can remain of sober temperament.

2. Gay pride parade is a declaration in a broad daylit public venue down Main Street declaring year-round value system kids are supposed to see as "normal" "acceptable" "reasonable" and "healthy".


----------



## bodecea (Jan 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Ah.....then a LOT of CPS workers are going to be busy.   Go to any Mardi Gras or watch it on Live Cam...there are tons and tons of parents with their young children there.  And yet, somehow, this isn't much of an issue....until just now...........hmmmmmmmmmm.
> ...



So...let me be clear on this.....you equate taking your children to Mardi Gras with cheating on your taxes.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> So...let me be clear on this.....you equate taking your children to Mardi Gras with cheating on your taxes.



So let me be clear that you like to take things out of context to create non sequitors and strawmen?

In context of "if everyone is doing it, then it must be legitimate" [remember?  of course you do..] yes, taking your children to Mardi Gras is the same as cheating on taxes in that numbers of people doing something does not = that thing being right.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jan 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


*

Marriage today is a mockery, it isn't permanent to too many people anymore, so I have no issues with dissolving legal marriages and changing them to civil or uncivil unions as the case maybe. When I got married my wife and I thought the law as a requirement. The marriage was covenant between ourselves and God, the legal issue was tripe. 

We have worked our way through economic hard times, the death of a child, the raising of children and now into our later years enjoying each others company. Marriage to us is sacred and nothing to be taken lightly.

So, you are very correct, God hates a divorcing, but today, it is treated as a convenience. I don't think God has any pleasure in seeing marriage treated the way it is today. 

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of most people's view of marriage today.*


----------



## bodecea (Jan 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > So...let me be clear on this.....you equate taking your children to Mardi Gras with cheating on your taxes.
> ...



One more time...and a simple answer would do.

You equate taking your children to Mardi Gras with cheating on your taxes?


----------



## hjmick (Jan 10, 2014)

Federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in Utah | Fox News


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 10, 2014)

So, have we figured out yet that these perverted fudge-packers, spreading on the pavement in broad daylight, should be sent to Iran as goodwill ambassadors?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2014)

hjmick said:


> Federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in Utah | Fox News



Eric Holder is not the US Supreme Court.  And in my opinion, this act of his is defiance of the US Supreme Court's Order to stay the "legality" of gay marriage in Utah until their final say has been rendered.  

Holder's actions very much carry the flavor of AG Harris and Gov Brown in California and that of contempt and defiance.  They are in essence, flipping the middle finger to the US Supreme Court and their own voters/employers.  

Of course this plays nicely right into the hand of the GOP since the net result of Holder doing this will be more votes for the republican party in this pivotal election year.

I'm going to rename the democratic party: The Dumb Party.  They're just plain stupid, there's really not much more to say about it.  Lining up behind gay "supporters" when all that reported "support" was a lot of smoke and mirrors from some very clever gay activists in powerful places [like Hollywood for example, and maybe an education Czar?], is like political suicide.  I guess Holder figures they've got so much support and the elections this year will be such a slam dunk for dems that they can afford to lose a couple million voters here and there?

Maybe he has ahold of numbers we don't know about that gives the dems this kind of frankly foolish confidence in "the numbers" they are spoon fed from clever hands...?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in Utah | Fox News
> ...



Are we to assume then that you would prefer a "smarter" approach?  Maybe an approach that appeals to bigots and fear mongers?  An approach that erodes personal rights and freedoms?  An approach that alienates not only young voters, but educated voters and homosexuals all in one fell swoop?

What was it you were saying about a "Dumb Party"?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Are we to assume then that you would prefer a "smarter" approach?  Maybe an approach that appeals to bigots and fear mongers?  An approach that erodes personal rights and freedoms?  An approach that alienates not only young voters, but educated voters and homosexuals all in one fell swoop?
> 
> What was it you were saying about a "Dumb Party"?



The 1st Amendment rights and the rights reaffirmed in DOMA in Utah are superior to the pleas of the Harvey Milk-worshipping LGBTers.  Sorry.  Sexual fetish cults don't take precedence over state's consensus' rights in marriage qualifiers.  If they did, polygamy would have to be affirmed in Utah as well.  

Don't look for that to happen with this SCOTUS.  I guarantee they are not going down in US history as "the Court that ushered polygamy back in Utah as a mandate"..lol...no way Jose'.  Not in a million years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 10, 2014)

Holder made it very plain that federal law will be upheld in Utah.

Since Utah income tax is based on a platform of federal taxed income first, the married couples -- all married couples in Utah -- will be treated the same on the Utah income tax form.

Or the governor and the state AG will be upheld for contempt of federal law: not a good place to be.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Are we to assume then that you would prefer a "smarter" approach?  Maybe an approach that appeals to bigots and fear mongers?  An approach that erodes personal rights and freedoms?  An approach that alienates not only young voters, but educated voters and homosexuals all in one fell swoop?
> ...



We don't actually know that yet...but we will soon. The lawsuits are piling up...the SCOTUS won't be able to punt next time. 

You never know...you could get your wish, that states can decide marriage equality for themselves. I'd actually be okay with that as long as the rest of DOMA is repealed that says my marriage license isn't good in all 50 states like other couple's marriage licenses are. You know...like 1st cousins, Phil Robertson's 15 and 16 year olds, etc.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Holder made it very plain that federal law will be upheld in Utah.
> 
> Since Utah income tax is based on a platform of federal taxed income first, the married couples -- all married couples in Utah -- will be treated the same on the Utah income tax form.
> 
> Or the governor and the state AG will be upheld for contempt of federal law: not a good place to be.



Only their Federal Taxes. They will have to file separately for state and jointly for Federal. It's the exact opposite of the way I've been doing it since 2003...until this year. This year my spouse and I will be filing joint Federal and State taxes. I'm very excited.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Holder made it very plain that federal law will be upheld in Utah.
> ...



relationship status should not determine tax breaks. NO marriage, gay or otherwise should receive tax breaks merely for being married.  

If the courts are really interested in doing this thing right. they aught to take away the term marriage from all governments and prohibit tax breaks based on relational status.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 10, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, yeah...and yet I've seen no legislation proposed anywhere to do that. In the meantime, my legal marriage gets treated like yours...hooray!


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That's like saying "I get to play a little while longer in virtual marriage land".  If you were "married" in California, you are in violation of law and your marriage is also.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Nope...I get to continue to play in "married land" in perpetuity. I was married in 2008, before Prop 8 not that it matters since Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Were you married in California since the founding of the nation to a same gendered person?  If so, your marriage is invalid.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Um...nobody has been married since the founding of the Nation, Einstein. 

You'd think the military would know that my legal marriage was "invalid" and yet still they enrolled my spouse in DEERS and issued her a dependent ID card. Weird...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Only in your mind, sil.  Seawytch's marriage is every bit as valid in the state as before God.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

May silhouette has been married since the beginning of the nation.  That would make her really old.


----------



## KNB (Jan 11, 2014)

Go through the Bible with a black magic marker and cross out every single line that is not a direct quote from Jesus Christ.  When you're finished, read through Jesus' words to find when he said that homosexuality or gay marriage is an "abomination".

Hint:  He never said anything like that.  However, you will find several quotes where he says that money is an abomination, bankers are scum, and greed is a sin.

If Jesus Christ rose from the grave and ran for President of the United States in the year 2016, the GOP would condemn him as a liberal leftist Progressive Commie Socialist Nazi traitor.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> Go through the Bible with a black magic marker and cross out every single line that is not a direct quote from Jesus Christ.  When you're finished, read through Jesus' words to find when he said that homosexuality or gay marriage is an "abomination".
> 
> Hint:  He never said anything like that.  However, you will find several quotes where he says that money is an abomination, bankers are scum, and greed is a sin.
> 
> If Jesus Christ rose from the grave and ran for President of the United States in the year 2016, the GOP would condemn him as a liberal leftist Progressive Commie Socialist Nazi traitor.



Go through my State's constitution with a highlighter and embolden where is marriage is between a man and a woman.


----------



## KNB (Jan 11, 2014)

If marriage is a religious institution, then your state's Constitution can't have anything to do with it because *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"*.

If marriage is simply a social contract between two people and the government's role is to oversee taxation, then your state's Constitution can't have anything that unfairly discriminates against the LGBT population.  So either way, the Bible and the GOP are wrong on this.

Why are "small government" Republicans always so interested in what free people do in their own homes?  Are gay people committing a crime that directly affects you?  Does it really concern you if two women are married?  Why does that concern you?  You're not involved in their social arrangement at all, in any imaginable way, so why do you get to force your mangled version of "morality" on other segments of the population that don't believe in your stupid fairy tale?  That is unconstitutional.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> If marriage is a religious institution, then your state's Constitution can't have anything to do with it because *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"*.



Congress didn't make a law. 

No religion was established.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> Why are "small government" Republicans always so interested in what free people do in their own homes?  Are gay people committing a crime that directly affects you?  Does it really concern you if two women are married?  Why does that concern you?  You're not involved in their social arrangement at all, in any imaginable way, so why do you get to force your mangled version of "morality" on other segments of the population that don't believe in your stupid fairy tale?  That is unconstitutional.



I'm not a "small government" Republican but it seems you have taken the issue mainstream and far from the privacy of any home.

The collective will of the citizenry of my State and its Constitution is paramount.

I view homosexuality like any other paraphilia, as the did the DSM prior to the 1970's.  You are free to engage all you want but my community doesn't have to legitimize, sanction or otherwise condone of such behavior.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 11, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The entire problem is a Federal tax code that rewards marriage



It was meant to help taxpaying parents save for their retirement when most Americans were actually having babies.

Now, liberals want all Americans to abort their babies and join the club.

And if you say anything against it, the frothing begins.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



all of a sudden, you who look to the courts for answers, want legislation?  

your marriage could not be treated like mine cause I'm not married.  Why is it fair that I dont get a tax break???


----------



## KNB (Jan 11, 2014)

Do you people know how stupid you sound?  "My community has the right to discriminate against whoever we want."  No, you don't.  Gay people have the right to be married.  You and your stupid Bible do not have the right to stop them.  This is a civil rights issue, like allowing black people and women to vote.  By your failed "logic", your dumbass white racist community has the right to stop African-Americans and women from voting.  "The governor signed a law that says that black people and women can't vote because the Bible told him to."  Somehow that's okay in regards to gay marriage?  "The governor signed a law that says gay people can't get married because the Bible said homosexuality is a sin."  Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?  Of course you don't.

Even if 101% of Americans "vote their faith" and condemn the entire LGBT community, you still can't pass a law that forbids them from marrying, filing taxes as a couple, or visiting each other in the hospital.  That is against the US Constitution.  Your idea is detrimental to gays' and lesbians' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness which does not have any intrusion into your life in the slightest possible way.  Like two women getting married somehow makes YOUR heterosexual marriage less meaningful?  You might not like the idea of gay people getting married, but luckily for rational society, your idiotic religion isn't allowed to become law.  Your only other options are to move out of the United States or just kill yourself.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> Do you people know how stupid you sound?  "My community has the right to discriminate against whoever we want."  No, you don't.  Gay people have the right to be married.  You and your stupid Bible do not have the right to stop them.



Gay people have the right to be married in States where it is the will of its citizenry.

The Bible doesn't motivate or enter the argument for me or the legislative process of Constitutional amendment.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> Even if 101% of Americans "vote their faith" and condemn the entire LGBT community, you still can't pass a law that forbids them from marrying, filing taxes as a couple, or visiting each other in the hospital.  That is against the US Constitution.  Your idea is detrimental to gays' and lesbians' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness which does not have any intrusion into your life in the slightest possible way.



The Constitution doesn't give you the right to life, liberty or pursuit of your own happiness.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



They don't get tax breaks.   It's called the marriage penalty.  What they get tax breaks for is having children, but even single people get tax breaks for having children.

TPC Tax Topics | Marriage Penalty

When two individuals marry, their income tax liability as a married couple may exceed their combined income tax liabilities as singles. This additional tax burden resulting from marriage is referred to as a "marriage penalty" (or "marriage tax"). Marriage can also reduce the federal tax liability of two people, in which case the reduction in tax is called a "marriage bonus" (or "marriage subsidy").

This concept is easily illustrated using a hypothetical couple. Assume that in 2001 two people each have an annual income of $30,000. Assume also that each uses one personal exemption of $2,900 and that each takes the standard deduction of $4,550. Each has an income tax liability of $3,383, and their combined tax liabilities as singles total $6,766. If they were to marry and use the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly ($7,600) and two personal exemptions, then their married tax liability would be $7,172. This hypothetical couple would pay $406 more in federal income taxes as a married couple than they would as two single individuals. This difference in tax liability ($406) is the so-called marriage penalty.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > If marriage is a religious institution, then your state's Constitution can't have anything to do with it because *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"*.
> ...



The 1st Amendment was long ago incorporated into federal supremacy, and no state may ignore 14th Amendment protections of individual rights

Where in conflict, state law can never overrule federal law.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > KNB said:
> ...



Thanks.  I filed this in

G:jakestarkey\no_shit_sherlock.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 11, 2014)

I've never watched the TV show, "Girls" but apparently its a huge hit. The star, Lena Dunham said, "I don't want to get married until all gay people can get married."

Good for her. 

Dr. Martin Luther King was right when he said, "no one is free until we are all free."


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Dr. Martin Luther King was right when he said, "no one is free until we are all free."



I am not certain MLK was a homosexual supporter.

Perhaps you are glomming on too much to that legacy in the most vile form of tacit racism.


----------



## KNB (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> The Bible doesn't motivate or enter the argument for me or the legislative process of Constitutional amendment.


The Bible doesn't motivate the right-wing GOP Christian Conservative community to outlaw gay marriage?  So if it's not the Bible, then what is it?  The Book of Mormon?  Why are Republicans so rabid about this issue if it's not because of your ridiculous "faith"?  What do you base your opposition on?  Why do you care if two men or two women get married?  How is it any of your business?  No one is forcing you to do anything.  All they want are the same rights and privileges afforded to every other married couple in America.

That's called "equality under the law".  It's supposed to be an American ideal.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 11, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> _I've never watched the TV show, "Girls" but apparently its a huge hit. The star, Lena Dunham said, "I don't want to get married until all gay people can get married." Good for her. Dr. Martin Luther King was right when he said, "no one is free until we are all free."_


The drama-queen verbiage around here is thick enough to cut with a knife...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




You can...by getting married. I don't get the tax break for owning a private jet. Is that "fair"?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Martin Luther King was right when he said, "no one is free until we are all free."
> ...


It's amazing how brazen Gays and their sympaticos are, in drawing faux analogies to the race-equalization struggle.

There are no biblical stories of the godhead destroying a Sodom and Gomorrah because most of the population was black.

There are no biblical stories of the godhead communicating to mortals that blacks should be stoned or put to death because they were black.

There are no stories of blacks being too effeminate to defend their country or because blacks created a weakening effect or created a faction of buggerers within their own army.

There are, indeed, some similarities between the Civil Rights Struggle of the 20th Century and the Gay-Rights Struggle...

But there are far fewer similarities than the Gay Lobby is attempting to portray.

Try as the Gay Lobby might, to ride the coattails of that older and far more honorable struggle.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible doesn't motivate or enter the argument for me or the legislative process of Constitutional amendment.
> ...



Because if gays or lesbians get married, they automatically get access to adoptable orphaned children.  This is problematic because the LGBT movement across the nation and the world, evidenced by a recent release of a postage stamp, has at the head of their cultural value system an icon who preyed sexually on orphaned teen boys on drugs; one after the other..

It's not like when you remind them that their icon was a child sex offender, they back down and denounce him.  Oh no.  Instead, they defend him saying "you should focus on his achievements and not who he had sex with".  The problem with that is they tout his "achievments" as being open about his sexuality while in office.  So you can't really throw out that integral aspect of them celebrating his "achievements" can you?

And if that fails, gays and lesbians line up in unison on the Harvey Milk issue in another way.  If you corner them on it, their counter defense of Milk is to say the age of consent should be lowered.  Well, you can lower the age of consent clear down to 6 year olds like what Ancient Greece evolved to, but if those six year olds are homeless orphans on drugs, according to the laws in most states, they are not able to consent.  Nor would they be if they were addicted to drugs and over the age of consent.  The laws read that any person inebriated and sexually exploited is drug raped.  So, essentially, Harvey Milk, seeking young homeless boy-targets who had substance abuse issues, was really seeking pre-roofied victims to sodomize.

Here's a quote from his biography, indicating what gays and lesbians celebrate, _and require children to celebrate _as a matter of law in California.  In context the book was speaking about Milk's sexual appetites:

"_Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems_". [page 180].  The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts.

The only thing is, is that minors with emotional problems aren't "ruined goods", things, items, objects, "waifs" that because of their unfortunate circumstances are open to exploitation sexually or otherwise.  They are human beings.  They have feelings and need help to reach their full potential in life, not to be taken in, called some pervert's "son" [a think Milk did with one of his boy toys], bent over and sodomized repeatedly.  The one documented minor he did this to, eventually commited suicide on Milk's birthday.  That young man was a person just like you and me.

Gays and lesbians line up in unison behind this guy and this becomes a very secular, very problematic issue for the LGBT people telling Courts to "think of the children" [they have in their midst] when trying to play on heartstrings to win advances in the courts.  Also, christians at the very least have a completely clear mandate to not enable gay lifestyles in the story of Sodom and all its inhabitants, gay and gay-enablers wiped off the map; as referenced in Jude 1.  The very first passage of Jude says to the loyal, "if you don't want to go to the pit of fire forever, you will earnestly contend for the common salvation and not participate in any way with a gay cultural movement".  It really does say that too in its essence and specific wording.  The christian faith considers enabling homosexuality as a mortal sin worthy of eternal damnation.

Gay marriage DOES hurt the citizens of each state: the minor ones.  And just because they can't vote doesn't mean their custodians must have their hands tied behind their back while the LGBT cult advances on their youngsters...


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 11, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



YOUR own link says there is a subsidy, at least in certain situations 



Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



By that same logic I could say to you get married to someone of the opposite sex to get your tax break.


----------



## KNB (Jan 11, 2014)

Silhouette, you appear to be saying that all homosexuals and lesbians are child molesters because Harvey Milk was a leader of the movement.

So by that "logic", does that mean that all Republican voters are war criminals because they love Ronald Reagan who sold weapons to terrorist groups and funded Contra death squad mercenaries?

Do you see that you don't have a point?  As for Sodom and the Bible, rational society ignores it.  That has no bearing on reality today because there isn't an invisible man in the sky who kills people for being gay.  That's just religious insanity.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible doesn't motivate or enter the argument for me or the legislative process of Constitutional amendment.
> ...



Bible doesn't motivate me.

Legislation is not based on biblical grounds.

I can not speak to the right-wing GOP Christian Conservative community's personal motivations, which, being a free and liberal thinker, I am sure you are in support of their right to have and promote.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 11, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




The tax code consists of more than just the Income Tax code.  Three off the top of my head are:

1.  Tax free transfer of property to a living spouse.

2.  Exceptions for Estate/Inheritance Taxes for surviving spouses.

3.  A window(er) being able to take a $500,000 exemption on the sale of a home for up to two years after the death of a spouse even though they are single and the single exemption is $250,000.​
None of the above are contingent on having children.

>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Thank you for agreeing the state then will lose on this matter.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Martin Luther King was right when he said, "no one is free until we are all free."
> ...



I am not sure that he wasn't.  Are you trying to make an unimportant point?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Lose on the matter of establishing a religion ?

The State is not establishing a religion by making marriage between a man and a woman as part of its Consitution


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

"There are no biblical stories of the godhead destroying a Sodom and Gomorrah because most of the population was black.  //  There are no biblical stories of the godhead communicating to mortals that blacks should be stoned or put to death because they were black."

American law originates in the Constitution, nothing else.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

Christian institutions for generations "across the nation and the world" are know to have preyed on abandoned and orphaned children."

Sil, humans are imperfect, all humans, dear.  Christians are no better than anyone else.  The fact that they know better means their condemnation is greater.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Comparing unacceptance of your personal sexual practices to the struggle of the Negro race is pretty fucked up.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Civil rights are not limited to one's race, you know.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

bodecea said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yep.   

And they are not based on one's sexual practices either.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > Why are "small government" Republicans always so interested in what free people do in their own homes?  Are gay people committing a crime that directly affects you?  Does it really concern you if two women are married?  Why does that concern you?  You're not involved in their social arrangement at all, in any imaginable way, so why do you get to force your mangled version of "morality" on other segments of the population that don't believe in your stupid fairy tale?  That is unconstitutional.
> ...



You should now submit to having a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 11, 2014)

KNB said:


> Silhouette, you appear to be saying that all homosexuals and lesbians are child molesters because Harvey Milk was a leader of the movement.
> 
> So by that "logic", does that mean that all Republican voters are war criminals because they love Ronald Reagan who sold weapons to terrorist groups and funded Contra death squad mercenaries?
> 
> Do you see that you don't have a point?  As for Sodom and the Bible, rational society ignores it.  That has no bearing on reality today because there isn't an invisible man in the sky who kills people for being gay.  That's just religious insanity.



Silly NEVER has a point.  She's a human spambot, no more and no less.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



I am neither homosexual nor black, but you are completely wrong in your personal opinion,


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



We are talking about civil rights, which include marriage.  Tuff that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 11, 2014)

Very good, Jarlaxle.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



We are talking about the gay which is not a Federally protected civil right.  Tuff that.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Go to the local black community and stand on corner and preach it.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Very good, Jarlaxle.



Piss off, human spambot.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



You gotta know that your values are screwed up when you have to petition, strike, parade, boycott and have an overall shitfit for the "right" to bunghole somebody else.

Not only do the perverts want to us establish their deviance as a "right", they want us to accept it as normal.

Why do perverts demand that the rest of us elevate their depravity to some artificial social acceptance?  Most people I know don't consider the lowest common denominator as something to strive for.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




That's pretty dern close to what they said to interracial couples. How'd that argument turn out in court?


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



 ITS YOUR LOGIC!!!!  

The 14th amendment was never meant to apply to gender issues or it would have legalized womens' suffrage.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> That's pretty dern close to what they said to interracial couples. How'd that argument turn out in court?



Still on about that Loving v Virginia angle eh Seawytch?

SCOTUS brought it up in DOMA and then went on to affirm that gay marriage as of their Decision, was "only allowed" "in some states", not all of them.  So I guess they could completely change their minds within one year's time about the applicability of Loving to LGBT/Harvey Milk cult, but don't hold your breath..


----------



## bodecea (Jan 11, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Civil rights are based on the government treating all law-abiding tax paying citizens equally under the law.   It's really that simple.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 11, 2014)

bodecea said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



if its really that simple than no person on the basis of their relationship status should get favorable tax treatment.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Yet they do already.

I'm sorry, the idea that favorable tax treatment for different-gender couples is going to be removed just to deny same-sex couples the same treatment isn't going to be popular with all the different-sex Civilly Married couples.


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 11, 2014)

bodecea said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Not according to SCOTUS.  

States can define marriage.

It is really that simple.

The will of the people of those states is paramount.

Why can't you respect that ?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 11, 2014)

bodecea said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Exactly...

All law-abiding tax-paying men are free to marry law-abiding tax-paying women.

All law-abiding tax-paying women are free to marry law-abiding tax-paying men.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



 So you admit to gender discrimination.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 12, 2014)

That's not gender discrimination. Neither men nor women are being discriminated against, you moron.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 12, 2014)

If Obama had the same power as Lincoln he could legalize it nationally with a wave of his hand  With drugs....    With a wave Lincoln of hands hand he did things Obama could only dream of.

Fdr wasn't even as powerful as Lincoln. I am talking changing the constitution...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

> Not only do the perverts want to us establish their deviance as a "right", they want us to accept it as normal.



The social, cultural, and political far right reactionary world is not normal.

You sound exactly like the far right segregationists in the 1950s opposing civil rights and the far right chauvinists in the 1970s and 1980s opposing women's rights.

Your time has come and gone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Doesn't matter, loopy; the black community support is growing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Very good, Jarlaxle.
> ...



Says the bot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



That's your opinion, but SCOTUS won't note it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > That's pretty dern close to what they said to interracial couples. How'd that argument turn out in court?
> ...



And that it cannot supersede the 14th.  Tough that.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I admit nothing.

How is the above discrimination?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



False argument because the legislature cannot deny civil rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



The will of the people subordinate to the Constitution.  Why can't you respect that?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 12, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Because Section II of the 14th Amendment addressed, specifically, the right to vote.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Marriage is the purview of the States per the Constitution.

See _Windsor _for the affirmation.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 12, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




Only the states that have chosen to correctly apply the 14th Ammendment. They haven't ruled on states like yours yet, but they will have to soon. The lawsuits are piling up!


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



They had a chance to affirm _Windsor_ based on the 14th but they chose the 10th ????

State's right.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 12, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Marriage is the purview of the States per the Constitution.
> 
> See _Windsor _for the affirmation.



In United States v. Windsor the SCOTUS did not state that Civil Marriage was totally in the purview of the States.  We know that isn't true because the SCOTUS found in Loving that the States had exceeded their powers.  Loving overturned State Civil Marriage laws.

What they said in Windsor was "*Subject to certain constitutional guarantees*, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, &#8220;regulation of domestic relations&#8221; is &#8220;an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,&#8221;.

It's pretty important to note that the SCOTUS does not feel that Windsor settled the issue in terms of States ability to say "No" to Same-sex Civil Marriage (as the case had nothing to do with States that said "No".  It was only about Federal recognition for States that said "Yes".  From Chief Justice Roberts in the Windsor documentation:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority&#8217;s analysis 
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its 
analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and he 
logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether 
the States, in the exercise of their &#8220;historic and essential authority 
to define the marital relation,&#8221; ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage."​
I think the Chief Justice pointing out that Windsor has no bearing on whether the States have the power to say "No" is pretty important in determining the scope of Windsor.




OODA_Loop said:


> They had a chance to affirm _Windsor_ based on the 14th but they chose the 10th ????
> 
> State's right.



United States v. Windsor was not decided based on either 14th or 10th Amendments which apply to the States, Windsor was decided based on 5th Amendment principals which apply to the Federal government.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose 
overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure 
those whom the State, by its marage laws, sought to protect 
in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection 
and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected 
than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth 
Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to 
those lawful marriages."​
The last sentence in the above from the court also points out what Chief Justice Roberts said, "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."  The scope of the Windsor decision concerns only Federal recognition of lawful marriages entered into under State law.  It does not address the question about whether States have the power to discriminate for no compelling reason against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage.  That will be a different case and (IMHO) it looks like the SCOTUS won't be able to dodge the Utah case.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

>>>>


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Projection is not healthy, boy!  Back to your padded room, now.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Are we to assume then that you would prefer a "smarter" approach?  Maybe an approach that appeals to bigots and fear mongers?  An approach that erodes personal rights and freedoms?  An approach that alienates not only young voters, but educated voters and homosexuals all in one fell swoop?
> ...


First amendment rights?!?  If marriage equality is denied in Utah, wouldn't that run counter to the First amendment?  Such denial would, in effect, establish religous dogma as law.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Bullshit.  Our laws against murder are reflected in religious dogma but I don't see you yapping that's wrong.  laws against stealing, laws against adultery, on and on.  No yapping from you though.  Laws against sexual deviance can be reflected in law and religion too.

The issue is what defines deviance.

The perverts and queers want it defined such that their particular deviance is excluded from laws preventing what THEY want to do.  

Conservative religious people want law to reflect their beliefs and the queers want the laws to reflect theirs.

Religion reflected in our laws isn't the issue.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

LeadRoundNose said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Is homosexuality a criminal offense?  Are people incarcerated for simply being who they are?  

Deviance is in the eye of the beholder.  If two consenting adults find love with each other are they committing a crime like murder?  Or robbery?

This issue is like all other issues concerning personal rights and freedoms.  It is being opposed by Conservatives who hate expanding freedoms and rights.  And that opposition stems from nothing but bigotry.  Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> LeadRoundNose said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Homosexuality is a sin as defined in God's Word.  Both the Old Testament and the New Testament lay clear guidelines against that kind of sexual deviance.

Whether you believe The Bible or not doesn't change the fact that God's law against sexual deviance is just as compelling as His laws against murder, theft and other sins.

Queers want to redefine what the Bible says or ignore it.  That's fine by me.  If queers want to bunghole each other do it.  But don't expect all normal people to accept it into a protection for changing the foundation of marriage into some kind of legal, even acceptable, even DESIRED new laws defining behavior.

Get back into the closet ye queers and homos.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

LeadRoundNose said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > LeadRoundNose said:
> ...


so if your personal disdain for homosexuals stems from your personal religious beliefs (which makes no sense if your faith is based on Christian values), wouldn't it then follow that denying marriage equality is a violation of the first amendment?  By denying basic rights to a group on religion is, in effect, the establishment of a religion by the state.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 12, 2014)

Why would being against homosexuality not be following the tenets of Christianity?  I told you the New Testament clearly describes what's acceptable regarding sexual relationships.  You can stand there and say all day that it doesn't reflect Christian's values and ANY Christian knows that's just wrong.  Saying what you're saying over and over and over doesn't suddenly make you correct.

You simply fall into the category of somebody that wants to change or ignore what The Bible says.

You don't get to do that.  Christians follow the New Testament.

Nobody forces you to go to church, to pray or to abide by The Bible's more nuanced laws concerning sinful behavior.  Obviously you WILL obey the Bible's laws against major sins recognized by government as something good for both personal freedom and societal norms.

Like I said, you want to base the argument for queers on separation of church and State and that argument doesn't fly.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

LeadRoundNose said:


> Why would being against homosexuality not be following the tenets of Christianity?  I told you the New Testament clearly describes what's acceptable regarding sexual relationships.  You can stand there and say all day that it doesn't reflect Christian's values and ANY Christian knows that's just wrong.  Saying what you're saying over and over and over doesn't suddenly make you correct.
> 
> You simply fall into the category of somebody that wants to change or ignore what The Bible says.
> 
> ...


You are using a warped interpretation of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" to rationalize and cover your personal bigotry with a flimsy veil of religios belief.  You are asking Americans to create laws based on those warped interpretations.  You are asking the system of jurisprudence to act as an arm of your mis-guided and incredulously irrational 'faith'.

I'm a Christian and I cannot endorse the denial of rights because homosexuals are not committing crimes against the state.  I recognize that opposition to marriage equality is based on nothing criminal, but fear, suspicion and bigotry.

If you acted as a Christian, you would respect the teachings of Jesus as well as the constitution of the United States.  Opposing marriage equality, and a homophobic attitude runs counter to the dictums of the first amendment, the Golden Rule and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What is it about America that you love?  It certainly isn't the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution.  It certainly isn't our national motto, e pluribus unum.  It certainly isn't your fellow Americans for whom you show so much disdain.  So what do you love about America?


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 12, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...


Thanks for good news for States' Rights!

 That was the intentnion of the Founders--a loose union of unique state countries for the purpose of standing up to world bullies interested in inflicting disintegration on new world people uncooperative with their bullying. Certain agreements were made to ensure that each state would have certain rights and governances.

 One-worlders are seeking to abolish our roots. Down with them and their divers inanities. I'm tired of them throwing states' rights under the bus. The purpose of the fed is to protect Americans from outside inflluences, not beat up the sovereignity of the people in a state whose forbears were given rights of governance that were never to be exploited by a strong fed.


----------



## Whig_Out (Jan 12, 2014)

Utah: "Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage.  Now continue to marry ten women."  IDIOTS.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

Whig_Out said:


> Utah: "Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage.  Now continue to marry ten women."  IDIOTS.


But, according to Liberal tolerance-philosophy, it's OK when a Muslim marries four.

Personally, I'll side with a bigamist over a fudge-packer any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Whig_Out said:
> 
> 
> > Utah: "Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage.  Now continue to marry ten women."  IDIOTS.
> ...


How did you reach that conclusion?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Whig_Out said:
> ...


The '_Lib-tolerance_' conclusion, or the '_side with_' conclusion?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...


States don't have the right to bully their citizens.  Arguing for a state's right to erode personal freedoms was last used during Jim Crow.  Before that, it was used to justify slavery.

One has to wonder if state's rights isn't just cover for bigoted, backward policies and repression.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Please explain.  You see, I'm a Liberal and I can't understand your conclusions.


----------



## Whig_Out (Jan 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Whig_Out said:
> 
> 
> > Utah: "Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage.  Now continue to marry ten women."  IDIOTS.
> ...



Another fucking idiot on this forum.  No, no one has said that.  Not one person and you have no source or proof of that.  Go back to FOX news 24/7 scumbag.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> If you acted as a Christian, you would respect the teachings of Jesus



And you wouldn't *pervert *those teachings.



> Matthew 19:1-8  Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Of course, when asked about marriage, Jesus issued a sweeping condemnation of all sexual relationships outside of the male/female model established in Gen 1:27, which he specifically cited.
> 
> Romans 1:18-32 Though most of the passages deal with the male perspective, for the first time there is a specific mention of female homosexuality.  And as the verdict comes in, we discover it too is a depraved condition brought on by a sinful nature.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Whig_Out said:
> 
> 
> > Utah: "Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage.  Now continue to marry ten women."  IDIOTS.
> ...



Pretend Christians like you sully the faith.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 12, 2014)

Whig_Out said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Whig_Out said:
> ...



What Whig-out, you don't like that polygamy and the discussion of it is going to be a natural evolution of topics in the US Supreme court when the Utah case is heard?  

Engage in denial much?  For it will be discussed.  In case you missed your US History lesson when Utah [then "Deseret"] was admitted as a state, the condition that it could be was to abandon the objectionable practice of polygamy.

How Harvey-Milk/teen predator-worshipping LGBT cultists are going to convince the High Court that polygamy is somehow not up for discussion should be a very interesting deployment of pretzel logic.  I look forward to the gyrations, backpeddling, stuttering and stammering from gay attorneys. 

Also I'll look forward to the gyrations, backpeddling, stuttering and stammering from gay attorney's on their angle of "legalize gay marriage because not doing so is bad for the children caught up in these couplings".  You don't use children for sex and you don't use them for political leverage.  ie: as long as Harvey Milk the drugged-orphan-teen-boy sodomizer is the icon of the LGBT movement, they have NO PLACE whatsoever to discuss child welfare as "augmented" by gay-anything.  LEAST of all the bitter irony of calling them "married parents".

Harvey Milk called himself a parent too: of the minor orphaned homeless boy he was simultaneously sodomizing; who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.  And this guy as a matter of law and on a US postage stamp now is the value-foundation leader for the LGBT movement.  Anyone who supports him or the cult who worships him and calls themselves a supporter of child welfare is a "fucking idiot"...


----------



## Barb (Jan 12, 2014)

> Engage in denial much? For it will be discussed. In case you missed your US History lesson when Utah [then "Deseret"] was admitted as a state, the condition that it could be was to abandon the objectionable practice of polygamy.



But they didn't "abandon the objectionable practice," did they? They simply made one wife sanctioned by the state and the rest paid for by the government. Quietly as its kept, the FDLS routinely uses aide to children of unmarried &#8213;plural wives to enrich the collective coffers of their husbands and the FDLS Church, while their child brides and children are routinely left wanting.

Also, this enrichment at the public trough is in addition to public funding that states and the federal government granted to polygamous FDLS towns that have incorporated. 
When Arizona permitted Colorado City to incorporate in 1985, after using the Establishment Clause as grounds to deny the same status to a &#8213;cult city led by an India &#8213;guru, the newly incorporated FDLS stronghold in Colorado City became eligible for public funds.



> in 1985, a year after the Rajneeshpuram decision in federal court, Arizona allowed Colorado City to incorporate anyway, which made the town eligible to receive state and federal grants. Since then it has received over $1.8 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to pave streets, upgrade fire equipment and build a water-storage tank. Hildale got $94,000 for its fire station. And the government-financed airport on the edge of Colorado City cost $2.8 million. Mayor Dan Barlow discounts the claim that the airport was built for FLDS leader Rulon Jeffs to land his chartered Learjet for Sunday meetings. "That wasn't part of it at all,'' He could fly into St. George just as easy.



So who would you think wouldn't want THIS conversation to take place?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 12, 2014)

Barb said:


> > Engage in denial much? For it will be discussed. In case you missed your US History lesson when Utah [then "Deseret"] was admitted as a state, the condition that it could be was to abandon the objectionable practice of polygamy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We are in agreement.  Polygamy will be the topic du jour in the Utah Hearing this year in SCOTUS halls.  

The funds were provided to a community likely because there were children there who needed infrastructure.  Not because the government condoned illegal activity of the adults.  You don't abandon children because the adults are up to no good.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.



My State constitution forbids and it is State matter.


----------



## Barb (Jan 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > > Engage in denial much? For it will be discussed. In case you missed your US History lesson when Utah [then "Deseret"] was admitted as a state, the condition that it could be was to abandon the objectionable practice of polygamy.
> ...



The same were denied to another religious community that also had kids, chica. Not white, not Christian, even as a sect. And that "You don't abandon children because the adults are up to no good" flies in the face of "conservative" philosophy. Rhetorical gymnastics should be an Olympian sport. You all might win something in the coming years.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 12, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.
> ...



Agreed.  Even more................see below.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 12, 2014)

LeadRoundNose said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



My state and I personally do not base opposition on biblical principal.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 12, 2014)

My State holds that queer marriage is illegal.


----------



## Barb (Jan 12, 2014)

And when you're called out as the American Taliban, you balk, bitch, and


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Whig_Out said:
> ...



*Liberal Tolerance* - Liberals will basically be taught to show "tolerance"  towards all groups which promote anti-american - anti-family and pro Big Brother agendas - while hypocritically denouncing the mythologies of American Society.  Primarily Christianity .  I personally am no Bible Thumper and have even written some agnostic material , but I find it reprehensible that Liberals have the audacity to ridicule Christians while preaching tolerance for a religion which is 500 years behind Christianity in its Social evolution. 

American Liberalism is guided by conflicting desires; *fear and a need to control*. Liberals are like those intrusive relatives who can't get their own lives together but want to be dictator of your life.

Liberals espouse_ multi-culturalism_ as an appeasement of Islam. If Muslims are left alone, they'll most likely leave us corrupt, immoral Americans alone. *Unfortunately, this does not work in reality*. Islam is about control - *absolute control.*  Which is another good reason Liberals like Islam.

Getting back to the OP - Gray Marriage- Utah - SOTUS yada yada yada .... carry  on


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Jan 12, 2014)

Barb said:


> And when you're called out as the American Taliban, you balk, bitch, and



It's expected that a liberal would compare American Christians to Taliban.  

To the liberal, outrageous comparisons are the norm in conversation.

A lot of it you can't help because you have been conditioned to respond that way.  You get a peanut everytime you repeat a democrat talking point.

It's a conditioned reflex on your part.


----------



## Barb (Jan 12, 2014)

LeadRoundNose said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > And when you're called out as the American Taliban, you balk, bitch, and
> ...



YOU posted the "christian" position that was accurately compared to one that also insisted  "their" religious law be made part of government policies. You need to take a good hard look at that stance yourselves before bitching about the very accurate comparison.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Whig_Out said:
> ...


The beauty of this is that I make no pretense about being a '_good Christian_'...

Yer gonna have to go down another road to get at me over this one, mine good colleague...

I see no 'sullying' going on here, other than the Gay Gestapo sullying the social and cultural environment with their moral relativity and bullying and perversions...


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


(1) Lib-tolerance Conclusion: stereotypically speaking, Liberals are far more tolerant of cultural differences that go against the grain of Western culture; ergo, Liberals are far more likely to be tolerant of polygamy in a Muslim context than a Moderate or Conservative would be.

(2) Siding with hetero polygamists over fudge-packers Conclusion: Pure personal opinion and preference. If you do not understand the choice then it seems unlikely that elaboration will prove to be of any substantive benefit.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

Whig_Out said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Whig_Out said:
> ...


Bite me, bitchboy.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 12, 2014)

Barb said:


> YOU posted the "christian" position that was accurately compared to one that also insisted  "their" religious law be made part of government policies. You need to take a good hard look at that stance yourselves before bitching about the very accurate comparison.



The topic of christian/mormon values and Utah is one of both religion and secular law.  Because the state of Utah has a strong religious foundation that forbids homosexuality or enabling homosexuality under promise of their beliefs that doing so leads to mortal sin and eternal damnation, they voted in a secular environment to exclude gays from the privelege of marriage.  So the issue straddles both sides of the fence.

In the DOMA opinion, the Court made it clear that each state's broad consensus has a vested interest in setting the parameters of their own discreet community apart from the other 50 states.  The Harvey-Milk worshipping LGBT cult just simply doesn't jibe with that state's majority values, be they secular values or religious ones.

In California, those who voted for Prop 8 tipped the scales in favor of excluding gays also.  Likewise, each individual christian within a state has the right to vote their value system even apart from a greater established formal church.  Or with secular objectors, a sound and visceral objection to mainstreaming values that give clear indicators of impending harm to children caught in the midst of these newly-legitimized perverse values. [see the biography of Harvey Milk and his iconic representation of the greater LGBT community]  And so the same thing happened there.  Gay marriage is forbidden in both states according to DOMA.

That's why the stay was issued and approved.  That's why Utah will not be forced to violate their faith and enact gay marriage or the next to follow: polygamy.

Any other rendering would be judicial overreach inasmuch as LGBTs will never be able to convince the Court that Loving applies to behaviors.  ie: they'll never be able to convince the Court that LGBT is a completely inclusive innate class of people instead of a group of intrepid deviants to mainstream sociosexual values.  ie: The Rocky Horror Picture Show writ large [and growing] is not a "race" of people.

If you haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I suggest you do.  It's a show about a bisexual transvestite who seeks to undo a marriage between two innocent heterosexuals and how he completely corrupts their value system by sexual seduction and repetitive chanting and singsong.  Eventually he does "liberate" the two newleyweds and the movie ends with them completely inducted as anything-goes sluts.  But not before in a sideline premise, this bisexual transvestite "Dr. Frankenfurter" creates a youthful boy-toy as his child/son/sodomy toy.  The frankenstein-boy's name is "Rocky".  Hence "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".

Once you see the movie you will instantly understand all the pieces of the gay agenda puzzle and how they fit exactly with the twin plot lines of the movie.  You will also know that this growing group of deviants is not even close to a race of people and is in fact a coordinated movement to completely dismantle all stays on base human behavior and taboos.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.
> ...


Ummmm... because in some remaining sane jurisdictions, Gay Marriage is merely another manifestation of the aberration and perversion known as homosexuality, to encompass its sexual practices and its manifested behaviors and collective activism and its latter-day political bullying and attempts to silence all opposition... an extension of Fascism, Leftist-style... and because a lot of good and decent people don't want that sort of filth and perversity to be empowered within their own jurisdictions?

A great many people equate homosexuality with unclean and ungodly and immoral behaviors and practices, spiritually akin to pedophilia and bestiality and necrophilia and other sexual perversions, and they don't want it around them or their children.

And they use Home Rule precedents insofar as they can, to keep The Darkness and wickedness and degeneracy at-bay, for as long as they can?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


I have not mentioned Islam until now.

What the faux Christian bigots are insisting upon is directly analogous to the Taliban.  That is to say the faux Xhristians are wrapping themselves in a warped interpretation of the Bible, ignoring the prime directive from Jesus Christ that we love one another and insisting that their interpretation of Biblical law become national secular law.

The American Taliban shares an intolerance with the Islamic Taliban.  The American Taliban wants to institute Biblical Law with all the zeal shown by the Islamic Taliban in their push to force Sharia Law on their fellow citizens.

It's ironic that the American Taliban cannot recognized their similarities with their Islamic counterparts.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 12, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


No, but *I* did, in the post to which you originally responded (_polygamy in Islam_).



> "..._What the faux Christian bigots are insisting upon is directly analogous to the Taliban_..."


Well, that is certainly the rallying imagery by which the Gay Lobby tries to bully those lacking the courage or the wit to deny the analogy, anyway.



> "..._That is to say the faux Xhristians are wrapping themselves in a warped interpretation of the Bible, ignoring the prime directive from Jesus Christ that we love one another_..."


Counterpointed, of course, by '_hate the sin, but love the sinner_'.

What cracks me up is that the modern-day Gay Lobby thinks that it is conjuring new arguments in support of its case in a spiritual context; whereas, in truth, such arguments have been made time and again over the centuries; nothing new under the sun, nor in canon law proceedings.

It's all been said and addressed before - dozens of times over the centuries.



> "..._and insisting that their interpretation of Biblical law become national secular law_..."


Given that our secular law has its roots in English Common Law, which, in turn, has its roots in a combination of Roman Law and Germanic Law and Salic Law and *Canon* Law, there has always been some truth to such a perspective; it's just that it's several hops from Canon Law to some of own statutory traditions, and most folks don't realize that.

A nations' laws reflect its moral compass.

A nation's moral compass usually reflects its 'confession' (its dominant spiritual beliefs).

I fully support our national tradition of a Separation of Church and State.

But I'm not overly concerned about some of our legislated moral stances closely mirroring our dominant religious beliefs.

Especially when that works to the benefit of 97% of the population (The Straights).



> "..._The American Taliban shares an intolerance with the Islamic Taliban. The American Taliban wants to institute Biblical Law with all the zeal shown by the Islamic Taliban in their push to force Sharia Law on their fellow citizens_..."


Gay Lobby hyperbole.



> "..._It's ironic that the American Taliban cannot recognized their similarities with their Islamic counterparts._"


More of the same.

This nation needs more people willing to openly stand up to the Gay Gestapo...

And to have the courage to take their brickbats (_like this latter-day Taliban tactical horseshit_) and throw it back in their faces.

Taking a stand...

Like men.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 12, 2014)

You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography!


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 12, 2014)

God talk again? Nobody's religion is of any relevance to a discussion about legal, civil marriage.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> God talk again? Nobody's religion is of any relevance to a discussion about legal, civil marriage.


Well to be fair you are partially correct.  But secular laws spring from moral convictions at the voting booth.  So you are also partially wrong.

In any event, DOMA has covered the bases and has said that the fundamental and "unquestioned authority" in the context of gay marriage lies within a broad "consensus" in state and not federal boundaries.  Cults are not race.  They brought up the 14th by citing Loving and then said in DOMA states still get to decide on gay marriage.  So, yeah, there's that little snag you're going to have to argue at the Utah case this year.  Essentially people will have to ask the Court why they brought up Loving and then went ahead and said states get to decide as of the writing of the Opinion June 2013.


----------



## Barb (Jan 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > YOU posted the "christian" position that was accurately compared to one that also insisted  "their" religious law be made part of government policies. You need to take a good hard look at that stance yourselves before bitching about the very accurate comparison.
> ...



You base your understanding and theory of society and social policy on the Rocky Horror Picture Show. 

Additionally, once I:



> see the movie you will instantly understand all the pieces of the gay agenda puzzle and how they fit exactly with the twin plot lines of the movie.  You will also know that this growing group of deviants is not even close to a race of people and is in fact a coordinated movement to completely dismantle all stays on base human behavior and taboos


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also. 



Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



If I understand you right, the 14th addressed the right to vote in context of race, then that testifies to the overall intent of the amendment also.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2014)

Barb said:


> You base your understanding and theory of society and social policy on the Rocky Horror Picture Show.



Take things out of context much?

I said that if you want to know about the GAY AGENDA, not society as a whole, you should watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show.  Try to keep the dishonesty down to a dull roar, OK?


----------



## Barb (Jan 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > You base your understanding and theory of society and social policy on the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
> ...



You are stark staring out of your mind. Somewhere, deep down in the back of that cesspit you call a mind, you must know that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 13, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



You don't understand it at all, period.

The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You don't understand it at all, period.
> 
> The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.



Cept the ghey  is not a protected class.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 13, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You don't understand it at all, period.
> ...




In some states they are...

_Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, individuals who identify as gays, lesbians, or transgendered have successfully asserted claims of discrimination under Title VII._


http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2011...s-are-not-in-a-protected-class-or-are-they/#


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The comment was regarding the 14th 
and the Federal government.

Ghey is not protected Federally.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> In any event, DOMA has covered the bases and has said that the fundamental and "unquestioned authority" in the context of gay marriage lies within a broad "consensus" in state and not federal boundaries.  Cults are not race.  They brought up the 14th by citing Loving and then said in DOMA states still get to decide on gay marriage.  So, yeah, there's that little snag you're going to have to argue at the Utah case this year.



From the decision:

"This is strong evidence of al aw having the purpose and effe
ct of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical 
effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, 
a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex
marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. "​
You are correct, there is no question to the authority of the States to say yes to Marriage Equality.

Also from the decision:

"The States interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, 
subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding 
that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of 
certain statutory benefits."​
The court actually points out that the State does not have "unquestioned authority" over Civil Marriage, it specifically says their actions are specifically subject to "constitutional guarantees".

If the States authority was "unquestioned", then the SCOTUS would not have been able to over turn previous laws (and State Constitutional Amendments voted on by the people - Such as Alabama).



Silhouette said:


> They brought up the 14th by citing Loving and then said in DOMA states still get to decide on gay marriage.




No, they cited Loving as an example of when the Constitution overrides State law.  It was cited only once in the decision to make that note.

The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".

As the court noted in the ruling:

"This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."​

>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 13, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




And I just showed you that isn't 100% true and some LGBT have successfully sued under Federal Law. 

Don't forget Romer and Lawrence either.

And the 14th is being cited in Federal Courts finding anti gay laws unconstitutional...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 13, 2014)

The far right reactionaries are down to trying a variety of heterosexual majority will Jackson democracy.  SCOTUS won't buy it for a second.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 13, 2014)

> If you haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I suggest you do. It's a show about a bisexual transvestite who seeks to undo a marriage between two innocent heterosexuals and how he completely corrupts their value system by sexual seduction and repetitive chanting and singsong. Eventually he does "liberate" the two newleyweds and the movie ends with them completely inducted as anything-goes sluts. But not before in a sideline premise, this bisexual transvestite "Dr. Frankenfurter" creates a youthful boy-toy as his child/son/sodomy toy. The frankenstein-boy's name is "Rocky". Hence "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".



WHAAAAAAAAAT?!?!  Just...WHAT...THE...*FUCK*?!  Silly is being even sillier than usual today!

Just because this is one of my favorite singers...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMRl55U0eDw]Hot Patootie[/ame]

(And yes, that blonde IS Susan Sarandon!  Thye redhead in the corset is "Little Nell" Campbell.)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 13, 2014)

Your Honor, please accept into  the record as Defense Exhibit 13B43n18 a copy of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> And I just showed you that isn't 100% true and some LGBT have successfully sued under Federal Law.



Protection for LGBT Employees Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities

_Currently, there is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws hiring or employment discrimination on the basis of the employees race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but does not mention sexual orientation_


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "_The far right reactionaries..._"


Given that only 3% of the population is Homosexual, and that 97% of the population is not...

Something tells me that the 'Far right' is not the only element of the population of our country that opposes the Gay Lobby Agenda, in whole or in part...

No point trying to demonize or misrepresent or mischaracterize the legions of good, decent folk who want nothing to do with such perverse and unnatural practices and behaviors and their manifestations within our society and culture... 

That's how the Gay Lobby got into trouble with their public relations disasters concerning Chick-Fil-A and A&E in the first place, by arrogantly bashing anyone who voices opposition, and by getting their heads handed back to them on a platter in the marketplace, as America reacted viscerally and in strong opposition to the Gay Lobby approach to chastising those companies and people...

But DO keep on trying to 'demonize' The Opposition... in a very real sense, you're doing their job FOR them, and making it that much easier for Mainstream America to despise and oppose the Gay Cause... you're going to slam 'em anyway, regardless of what anybody says. You can't help yourselves, and, you may have gotten to the point by now where you have no other practical choice.

Far right reactionaries? More like Mainstream America.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 13, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


You see folks, now this is what goes on here, where as there is certain groups that want to get the government out of the business of what it once recognized, and then upheld as being a decent institution in which we like to call the "Institution of Marriage" in this nation, and they want it changed because this instititution represents the traditional uniting or the joining up together of what has always been known as marriage between a man and a woman, and rightfully so.  The two were always joined together in Holy matramony, and then they are to raise a family as a result of this marriage being between a man and a woman, in which will give the kids a stable enviroment that brings normalcy and a proper balance to it all for which the kids can easily relate to as such in their lives. 

Now due to the break down of the traditional family over the years (purposely set upon and caused by these groups over time), now these groups feel that they have weakened the isntitutions enough so, that they can recreate these institutions with not much resistance any longer or to either destroy them as they wish. These very groups have been hacking away at everything this nation has been known for over time, and they have been hacking away within it's structure over these many years (like termites in the wood), secretly and strategically planning and lashing out when they can against that which has called itself a nation in which was united in these ways over time, and they are on the attack at every angle now so look for it. 

This is just one of those attacks, and they see themselves winning over time because as the new generations fall to these attacks, they can smell blood in the water is what these sharks can, and this is what we are dealing with now in America daily anymore.

They want the government to have no stance at all except for maybe one that leans towards the side that wants gay marriage, and this whether it be here or there in the land. Then these few with their huge mouths want the government to use it's power to enforce a new stance taken, otherwise once they get it seperated from the long time traditional stance that it has taken over time, then it will go rogue for them is their hopes by way of it's rogue judges, and that is what they want in all of this by what I'm seeing, especially when I read post like what I'm responding to above.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".
> 
> As the court noted in the ruling:
> 
> ...


Define "lawful marriages".  The Court did.  They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.

Oops.


----------



## tinydancer (Jan 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your Honor, please accept into  the record as Defense Exhibit 13B43n18 a copy of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You don't understand it at all, period.
> 
> The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.



Really?  Anyone can marry anyone?  I'm pretty sure the Court isn't going to interpret the 14th that way when it comes to marriage.  

A driver's license is a privelege; a privelege that blind people don't qualify for.  Pretty sure the Court isn't going to stand up to a state and tell them the blind now have to be able to drive.

Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone you say?  It harms a word, "marriage".  Just like transsexualism harms the words "male" and "female".  And what's with that Harvey Milk guy sodomizing orphaned street teens on drugs, and then having that "sexuality" celebrated as iconic of gay and lesbian values?

Wouldn't that be a contradiction to child welfare and adoption by gays and lesbians?  I'd sure think so.  I wonder what an adoption agency would say to a prospective set of parents who freely adored and promoted Jerry Sandusky's "open sexuality"?  Pretty sure they'd be turned down.  One of the things marriage does is opens up participants to equality in adopting kids.  Belonging to a social culture [not race] that upholds and promotes Harvey Milk as iconic of their values is harmful to orphaned children who then can be accessed by them via married-status.  Unless the LGBT community would be happy with 2nd class marriage-adoptive priveleges?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".
> ...



Lawful Marriages are those conducted under the jurisdiction of civil government which establish a family relationship between non-related consenting adults.

All Windsor said, as the court noted, that decision applies only to Civil Marriges where the state said "Yes", this couple is Civilly Married and therefore it is unconstitutional for the Federal government not to recognize that Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple.

As the Chief Justice noted, the Windsor decision was only about those States that said "Yes" and has no impact on determining if States can say "No".  That will be another case - which will very likely be Utah after it has run it's course through the 10th Circuit appeal process.



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



And I do wish you the best of luck in your battle. 

Singled Out: Are Unmarried People Discriminated Against?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Define "lawful marriages".  The Court did.  They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.
> ...



I understand that you are hopeful that this is so.  However, instead of putting words in the Court's mouth, I will quote them directly:



> Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
> 
> Page 14 of Opinion:
> 
> ...



Several things in the mind of the Court become clear upon reading ITS OWN WORDS and not the words of hopeful interpretors:

1. The Court believes very strongly about a state's right to define marriage within its own boundaries.

2.  The Court recognizes that this innate power is retroactive to the founding of the country.

3.  The Court even made mention of how the Framers of the Constitution agreed with #1 & #2; [which is a very poor harbinger for wresting that power away.  ie: it will not be a quick and flippant decision if the Court does.]

4. The Court believes that a broad-swath weigh in and not judicial activism or oligarchies are requisite of a state's _consensus_ decision under the context of oddball marriages like gay and lesbian marriage.

So, gay activists have their work cut out for them.  Since DOMA mentioned Loving v Virginia and did nothing about that application, nor did they declare that it was applicable to gay marriage, that means at the rock bottom least they are not convinced.  So there's the challenge.  Gays and lesbians need to convince the Court that:

1. They are an inherant and innate group of people that are inclusive among themselves in some significant or key way.

2.  That their marriages being forced upon the states via the 14th aren't inadvertently stripping legal power of the states away from them on the question of marriage qualification.  

ie; if you allow one questionable group of behaviors calling themselves "born that way" without proper vetting as such or diagnosis from the community of weighty experts their studies and their peers' review, then others can follow in self-diagnosis declaring they too were "born that way" without all that necessary paperwork proving that this is the case.

And then there's the Harvey Milk problem.

The last ditch argument that seemed to really sway the Court last time around was gays claims that "children will be harmed if the gays raising them cannot be married".  Yet gays and lesbians round the globe line up in lockstep behind who they call their sexual-culture icon: Harvey Milk.  And as I always have to remind new viewers just tuning into these debates: Harvey Milk's sexuality that gays and lesbians celebrate and force kids to celebrate as a matter of law in schools in California, was bending over homeless orphaned teen boys on drugs to sodomize, one after the other.

One minor victim he even officated as his father figure while sodomizing him.  That boy later commited suicide on Milk's birthday.

This becomes very problematic for the argument of "it will harm the kids not to let gays marry".  One of the perks of marriage is an automatic qualifier to be in the top tier of those who must be considered as adoptive parents for orphaned kids.  Lining up to defend a sexual predator of minors is going to come to loggerheads with that perk.  

What I envision happening, if gay marriage is forced upon the states, is lawsuit after lawsuit as more and more adoption agents come under fire for not automatically rubber-stamping gays adopting kids.  Even if that gay couple comes into the adoption office wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts.  Anything less than instant qualification and we will be looking at this case played out in courts in a different way in the future:  the civil rights of children to be protected from harm v the civil rights of "married gay couples who can iconize anyone they want without disqualification".

or boiled down: children's rights to protection v gays rights to expose them to sexual indoctrinization that is inappropriate for them [Harvey Milk and his cult]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You don't understand it at all, period.
> ...



When it comes to civil rights, dear, yes, SCOTUS will interpret it that ay.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

Sil is misapplying what the Court has said.

Nothing more.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster.  From the same link:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority&#8217;s analysis 
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its 
analysis leads no further. *The Court does not have before it, and
the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether 
the States, in the exercise of their &#8220;historic and essential authority 
to define the marital relation,&#8221; ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.*"​

Windsor does not answer the question about State that say "No", it only addressed recognition by the Federal government pertaining to States that said "Yes".  An answer as to whether States can discriminate in the realm of Civil Marriage based on gender (actual language) to exclude same-sex couples (intent) will be another case.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster.  From the same link:
> 
> "But while I disagree with the result to which the majoritys analysis
> leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its
> ...



You can hang onto your little bouy of dissent in a churning sea of "State's unquestioned authority...since the founding of our nation" as wave after wave of that reiteration hits you upon reading the majority Opinion on DOMA.  But eventually you are going to have to face the facts, large, looming and persistent as they are...


----------



## Misty (Jan 14, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> ...



Really? 

Think about it. You know I'm right. 

This is probably the most brilliant point ever made on this board.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster.  From the same link:
> ...




I deal with facts.

Fact #1:  Windsor did not settle the question of whether States can say "no", it only addressed whether Federal government has to recognize Civil Marriage from States that said "Yes".

Fact #2:  Windsor had no impact on Prop 8 (which is typically your other attempt to mis-apply Windsor), Prop 8 was found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed it to stand by not vacating the District Courts decision.

Fact #3: It will be a different case (possibly Utah) in which the SCOTUS addresses whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.

Fact #4:  You cherry-picking and out of context quotes are an attempt to mis-state what the court said.  The court said the States have the "unquestioned authority" to say "yes" and the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages.  They specifically didn't say that States have "unquestioned authority" to say "No", but that State Civil Marriage laws were still subject to Constitutional guarantees.  If States have the "unquestioned authority" to define Civil Marriage as they see fit, then the court would not have overturned State marriage bans in the Loving case.  Since they did, that shows the court recognizes there are constitutional limits on how State Civil Marriage laws can function.​


>>>>


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 14, 2014)

Misty said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



civil unions are a conservative concept also....one probably 75% or more of the country would agree with.....but apparently that isnt good enough.

If we really want to do this right government has to get out of marriage  and NO tax benefits should be based on relationship status


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...




Actually, it was Social Conservatives that shut the door on Civil Unions as an acceptable alternative with State Constitutional Amendments like:

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 29.   [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) *No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.*

Virginia Constitution
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. *Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.*​

Then there were instances like Washington State where Social Conservative started a ballot initiative because the State legislature approved Civil Unions that were "to much like marriage" the only difference being the name.  (The initiative lost at the polls, but that isn't the point.  The point it Social Conservatives tried to *stop* Civil Unions.

The idea that Civil Unions was doable was not a conservative position a decade ago when they felt they were in a position of strength, they've only really become the new mantra as a fall back position as more and more States are taking on Marriage Equality.



>>>>


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...




that may be so but doesnt change the truth of what I said​


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




It shows that Social Conservatives did not consider Civil Unions as an acceptable compromise and that they are the one that fought against them...

...well until they started losing in the State legislatures and at the ballot box, then suddenly it becomes the fall back position.


>>>>​


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Fact #1:  Windsor did not settle the question of whether States can say "no", it only addressed whether Federal government has to recognize Civil Marriage from States that said "Yes".
> 
> Fact #2:  Windsor had no impact on Prop 8 (which is typically your other attempt to mis-apply Windsor), Prop 8 was found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed it to stand by not vacating the District Courts decision.
> 
> ...



Not cherry picking at all.  In fact it was you who cherry picked just one paragraph from DOMA while I provided 6 of them all in alliance with the "states have the ultimate say..since the founding of our nation" theme.

You're being dishonest when you don't tell the whole story about how states can come to a decision on gay marriage.  

1. DOMA says it prefers consensus to judicial or legislative activism.

2. After reiterating state's right to choose under the context of gay marriage, I don't know, maybe a hundred times?  Just shy of that possibly?...DOMA mentioned Loving, other oddball marriages like 13 year olds, of which nobody will contend must be forced upon the states, except maybe gays and lesbians later on [See Harvey Milk Law in California].  Then DOMA concluded that gay marriage was only "allowed" "in some states".

True, technically and only to the most hopeful of rose-colored-glasses-wearers, the Court did not step up and say that states can forbid gay marriage.  Yet they did say that though, didn't they?  When they said that the choice on gay marriage was right and proper in the states, dating back to the founding of our country, and the decision was to be "consensus" among the governed, they did say a state has the right to say no to gay marriage, at least at the time of the writing of DOMA.  The Utah challenge will clarify what their stance is now.  Though I must warn you, the Court doesn't like to reverse it's own stance, express or implied within just a year's time.  Traditionally I think that's never happened?  Not a Supreme Court history expert.

When they said "consensus", did you think they meant "only the right for everyone to agree and no dissent?"  A consensus in this country means that everybody gets to weigh in and that they have a choice on how they weigh in.  "Consensus" does not mean "no choice".  It is the opposite meaning in fact.  And of a choice where "yes" and "no" exist, both are valid in a consensus.

The dictionary I think more than any other "legal document" is going to get in the way of the Harvey Milk club in convincing legal arguments...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Fact #1:  Windsor did not settle the question of whether States can say "no", it only addressed whether Federal government has to recognize Civil Marriage from States that said "Yes".
> ...



Sure you are as you ignore the fact that all the quotes are subject (as the court said) to "constitutional guarantees".



Silhouette said:


> You're being dishonest when you don't tell the whole story about how states can come to a decision on gay marriage.



States have come to decisions on Same-sex Civil Marriage based on:

1.  Court decisions.

2.  Legislative action.

3.  Constitutional Amendments at the ballot.​
I've never been dishonest about how States have arrived at their decisions.




Silhouette said:


> 1. DOMA says it prefers consensus to judicial or legislative activism.



"Activisim" is in the eye of the poster, in this case "activism" means (and I paraphrase) - "an action or decision I disagree with".

You tout "consensus" and now refer to "legislative activism".  You may realize it by the Windsor case - the one you continually misrepresent - was based on legislative action not a direct vote.  Actions which the court referred to as the state demonstrating a consensus.



Silhouette said:


> 2. After reiterating state's right to choose under the context of gay marriage, I don't know, maybe a hundred times?  Just shy of that possibly?...DOMA mentioned Loving, other oddball marriages like 13 year olds, of which nobody will contend must be forced upon the states, except maybe gays and lesbians later on [See Harvey Milk Law in California].



Except that's not what the decision does.  What the Windsor decision does is say that if a State accepts Same-sex Civil Marriage, then the Federal government can't say "no" to those legal marriages.

Funny thing is, that all States accept the legal Civil Marriages from other states (including one in which a 13 year old in New Hampshire [where a 13 can get married] and moves to another state) EXCEPT for Civil Marriage based on gender.  All the others are accepted.



Silhouette said:


> Then DOMA concluded that gay marriage was only "allowed" "in some states".



Windsor simply pointed out that it was allowed in certain states and not allowed in others.  Which is a true statement reflecting the current status of SSCM.

Whether states will continue to be allowed to ban SSCM's will be another case.  Historically prior to 1967 interracial marriage was allowed in some states but not others.  That changed.



Silhouette said:


> they did say a state has the right to say no to gay marriage, at least at the time of the writing of DOMA.



False, they said that if a State said "yes" the Federal government could not say "no".

Windsor did not address whether States could constitutionally say "No".




Silhouette said:


> The Utah challenge will clarify what their stance is now.



Technically it would clarify anything as the court has not ruled on a States ability to discriminate in terms of Civil Marriage laws based on gender.

It would be establishing an initial stance.



Silhouette said:


> Though I must warn you, the Court doesn't like to reverse it's own stance, express or implied within just a year's time.  Traditionally I think that's never happened?  Not a Supreme Court history expert.



Since they have not issued a ruling on the matter, no reversal in involved.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

The feds need to get out of the marriage issue period, and all other non-federal affairs that exist in this nation, and I mean quickly, because it is corrupt in it's twisted thinking now on such matters (IMHO), and it is corrupting this nation more and more with it's misrepresentation of this nation's citizens on many of these things in which it is weighing in on here and/or there. 

It has no business dealing with such things anyway or it has no business being used by those who are using the feds on such maters as these in which it finds itself dealing with these days, and all because of being easily used ? Wow!  Hey and their doing it for what, a few who want to be different, and for whom want to go against the grain ? They are thwarting the will of the people in this nation at every turn now, and that is* tyranny *pure and simple if you ask me. 

The feds have been taken over by radicals who control it in many ways, and it is proven in all that has transpired over the recent years. It has been led to parse words, reinterpret words, and to play politics with everything in order to try and tune in on what it thinks is the next up and coming voter block, and if a group is being held back as an up and coming voter block in which they *THINK* numbers many, then it will weigh in on an issue in order to insure that block is not hindered in it's growth in any way. The feds are drunken with power now, and they are using this power in unprecedented ways against the good citizens of this nation, and it does this all because of a mere few who handle her in these ways now ? Wow what has happened to this nation ? 

The people see it, but they feel they are powerless against it now, and that is a shame really.

Let the people speak, and then become strong together in a United way again in this nation, that is what I say about it. The feds need to quit forcing this nation to become something it does not want to become. Hey nothing wrong with refereeing a bit or making sure that the laws are abided by, but let the people ultimately decide their own fate on some uncharted matters being dealt with, and especially if that fate is good for the majority whom want their fate to be what it is for them as a majority, and not thwarted by a minority in order to bend for the few who are in numbers that are too few to even consider major changes for.  This is the way it should be while being in and amongst the many who want something different in their lives, otherwise as opposed to what the radicals or those who are too few to count want in their scheme of things. Shouldn't a majority have some say in their lives or is that over now in this taken over nation by a minority view, in which rules it now as a minority (by way of the feds), in order to empower such views that it has these days over the majority as it were ? Abiding by laws is one thing, but the feds are taking this to levels that are ridiculous anymore if you ask me.
I hope it wakes up soon, because it shouldn't be used like this if you ask me, and it needs to make a stand against being used like this in the ways that it is now being used.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...




Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional.




No it isn't. 

It is a State right to define marriage.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional.
> ...




How well did that work for Alabama?


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Alabama ?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> "..._Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional._"


Who knows. Perhaps the 97% will amend the Constitution or otherwise render homosexuality as (constitutionally) illegal and therefore negate the present argument, if you push 'em too far.

Where there's a will, there's a way.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




Yes, they were one of the States that had a Constitutional Amendment overturned by the Loving decision in 1967.

They defined, in their State Constitution, that marriage could not occur across racial lines.


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Race is a protected qualifier.

They ghey is not.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




Where does the Constitution list these "protected qualifiers"?


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



*Race* &#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Color *&#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Religion* &#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
*National origin *&#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Age* (40 and over) &#8211; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
*Sex *&#8211; Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Pregnancy* &#8211; Pregnancy Discrimination Act
*Citizenship* &#8211; Immigration Reform and Control Act
*Familial status* &#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
*Disability status *&#8211; Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
*Veteran status *&#8211; Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
*Genetic information *&#8211; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




Oh you mean these "protected qualifiers" -  they aren't in the Constitution?

Here's one for you...

"Amendment XIV
Section 1.

*All persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

No qualifiers in the Constitution to equal protection & due process.

BTW - Check Romer v. Evans, Colorado tried to pass discriminatory law against homosexuals.  How'd that work out?


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

>

Gotta get on the road.

Be back later.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> Gotta get on the road.
> 
> ...




Be safe, Chief.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 14, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional._"
> ...




There isn't a will. Try Russia


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Agreed.

The will isn't there.

However, given the massive backlash evident in the last two big PR disasters for the Gay Lobby (Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and A&E in 2013), I would not push the 97% too much further...

Continued arrogance and attempts to demonize the Opposition, on the part of the Gay Lobby, will not serve your cause well...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 14, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Hmmm...you must be a man...intentionally misleading regarding size...not to mention breadth.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I am not certain not being in the Constitution makes them less law.

_Windsor_ could have been a shut and close case due to _Romer._

However Windsor affirmed the right to determine marriage is the purview of the State.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

> However, given the massive backlash evident in the last two big PR disasters for the Gay Lobby (Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and A&E in 2013), I would not push the 97% too much further......[/SIZE]



That's a PC reactionary right poo statement: assertion fertilized with poo.

Even Utah is split 48/48 on the issue, when it had almost a 2/3ds majority anti-samesex marriage only a few years ago.   Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune

The massive backlash is overwhelming the heterosexual marriage only crowd.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Hmmm...you must be a militant feminist female... always got to have the last word, and always trying to bash men in the process.

If you have any objections concerning the 3% Gay, 97% Straight demographic, take it up with the folks who do the polls and studies... nothing to do with me... just the facts.

LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > However, given the massive backlash evident in the last two big PR disasters for the Gay Lobby (Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and A&E in 2013), I would not push the 97% too much further......[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You go right ahead and continue deluding yourself that slanted polls are telling you the truth.

I'll rely more upon people voting with their dollars and strong push-back on a variety of social media for my own set of bearings.

The longer you delude yourself, the harder the fall, when the pushback becomes sufficient so that you can no longer ignore or deny its scope.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > However, given the massive backlash evident in the last two big PR disasters for the Gay Lobby (Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and A&E in 2013), I would not push the 97% too much further......[/SIZE]
> ...


Yes, everything that has been created or pushed has been within a PC environment (bubble) that was created by way of the misusage of power in this nation. It has never represented the will of the majority, and it still doesn't to this day. As more and more reality shows become popular in this nation, it is showing more and more that people are not on board with the things that was once perceived they were thought to agree with or to be on board with, and the reason they were being perceived to agree was all due to the denial of access to the truth of these matters by having a fair and just consensus taken, and also due to the feds rogue judges making it appear as if they had to agree because they were wrong on such matters, when in fact they weren't.  It has been a planned out systematic take over of the American society against it's will, and the perception that was created is that the majority were on board with all these things, when in fact it never was the whole time. Now the Duck Dynasty show in which has become very popular in the new movement of the nation, worried the hec out of those who have been a part of this changing of the nation by way of activism instead of consensus, and so they sent their attack dogs to bring the show down is what I think were their hopes, but it back fired on them just like it did with the Chic-fi-la debacle in which they got mad about also. Anywhere they find a positive message that doesn't go along with their message and plans, then they attack or set someone up to be attacked is what I am seeing lately. Hey maybe it's their time to sit back and accept change, but you all know that isn't going to happen don't you ? They expected us to, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, just watch how they react or what they will do to keep their message as thee message above all other messages that are out there. Many compromises have been suggested or made on these things, but it is never enough with these people, because they have an agenda, and that agenda won't do compromises, yet they expect everyone else to compromise for them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > However, given the massive backlash evident in the last two big PR disasters for the Gay Lobby (Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and A&E in 2013), I would not push the 97% too much further......[/SIZE]
> ...



Son, you are spreading that reactionary poo again, and all you have is false, smelly propaganda.

You are deluded.  The pushback has failed for you.  Now it is only down hill for the far right reactionary social cons.  It's over.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Even Utah is split 48/48 on the issue, when it had almost a 2/3ds majority anti-samesex marriage only a few years ago.   Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune
> 
> The massive backlash is overwhelming the heterosexual marriage only crowd.



Speaking of "filled with poo", those statistics are complete BS.  Given the popularity of Chick Fil A, and Duck Dynasty over A & E, wow.  Just wow.

The same load of "poo" was shoveled out just prior to Prop 8 passing handily in California.  Gay internet propaganda artists [blatant liars posing as speaking for statisticians] assured everyone they should just support gay marriage in California because Prop 8 was "unpopular" and it was going to go down like big dog.  Then it won handily...lol..

The magicians at the head of the rainbow propaganda machine have employed "fake it till you make it" quite well over the last decade or so.  Only Chick-Fil-A, Prop 8 & the Duck Dynasty sort of pulled the wool off of that charade.

48% split opinion in Utah on gay marriage eh?  LOL!  Have you actually BEEN to Utah??  What, did they take that poll in some blue bar on the outskirts of Salt Lake's forbidden district?  Well technically they WERE from Utah...

...lol..  "Fake it till you make it".  My motto is "the buck stops here".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

> 48% split opinion in Utah on gay marriage eh?  LOL!  Have you actually BEEN to Utah??



I live in downtown SLC, you reactionary poo flinger, only five blocks above Temple Square.  I graduated from Utah State a lifetime ago.

Read the _Salt Lake Tribune _edition today, dear.  It is 48 to 48 and slipping away from the dominant culture, because its youth, particularly the females, are realizing much of it is nonsense and denies the reality of the Savior and his reason for coming to the Earth.

Here is the best advice, sil, you will get this year: you work on your behavior, particularly toward your neighbor, and let Jesus worry about the rest.  Do that, and you will be fine.

Love yourself, and you will learn to love your neighbor.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 14, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Do you know what the Jewish demographic in Germany was?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > 48% split opinion in Utah on gay marriage eh?  LOL!  Have you actually BEEN to Utah??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your threatening tone is noted.

As to what the Savior says about homosexuality and enabling it with your vote:



> Jude 1:
> 
> ...3. Beloved, when *I gave all diligence *to write unto you *of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, and *exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> ...


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > 48% split opinion in Utah on gay marriage eh?  LOL!  Have you actually BEEN to Utah??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even Hitler was a great propagandist, along with all that he employed to do his take over with him, but we see how all that went now don't we ? Taking over a populous or population against it's will, is a failed idea and strategy in the end, and it has been proven through out time now, but it matters not to these new activist who want to try it again, and this no matter what the history is or has shown to be on these types of things.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > 48% split opinion in Utah on gay marriage eh?  LOL!  Have you actually BEEN to Utah??
> ...



You clown, *what threatening tone*?  You have been corrected and also given good advice.  However, in your passive aggressive way, you are trying to threaten me.  Foolish.

Jesus never spoke on the issue, and only the minority of Christians who are heretics believe in biblical literalism.  In other words, the writers are writing for themselves, not Jesus.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > 48% split opinion in Utah on gay marriage eh?  LOL!  Have you actually BEEN to Utah??
> ...



What a *false reactionary righty piece of poo *by Beagle.

The population is not being taken over against its will.  You have every right to believe and teach what you want.

What is happening is that you are failing.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Suit yourself.

You've been warned (that Gay Rights advances are not yet secure, and that changes may be coming after January 20, 2017, and that the arrogance and attempts at browbeating of opposition by the Gay Lobby are now backfiring on it).

Go right ahead and continue to ignore the warning signs.

Your choice.

Doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Other than paving the way for a good belly-laugh when _I-Told-You-So_ Day arrives.


----------



## hazlnut (Jan 14, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.



I wonder if they eat shrimp cocktails or wear polyester in Utah -- two other Abominations according to old book of Jewish tribal law called Leviticus.

Interesting how "Christians" ignore all the rules about treatment of slaves and women, dietary and gardening rules imposed by God. Conservative "Christians" just cling to the one mention of homosexuality.

Why is that?

Leviticus is also pretty clear on all pagan practices, yet those Christians love their winter solstice trees, Easter eggs, and wedding bands.  Pagans all!!


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...




Jude is the New Testament and singled out the story of Sodom as a current and ongoing theme of modern Christianity.  It didn't single out pork, shrimp etc..  It singled out specifically the eternal damnation of Sodom and cities/states like Sodom slated for the punishment of the _current_ mortal sin of homosexuality and its enablers.  If you are a christian, mormon or muslim, go ahead and promote or vote for gay marriage, if you don't mind the eternal flames of the Pit of Fire...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

Sil and Beagle9 have been corrected for today.

We will see how and well they regroup.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



That may have been the misconcern of the writer of Jude.  It is not the theme that most Christians are concerned with; rather they are working out the love of the Father and the Son for all of the Creation.

However, our Constitution separates religion and state, Sil, and you and your heretics will not shatter that barrier.  We don't need a Taliban here.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 14, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Didn't say they were any less the law.  The 14th doesn't say "A subset of persons identified in other statutory law...", it says "All persons".



> _Windsor_ could have been a shut and close case due to _Romer._



Not realy.  Romer was a case about State law enacted (via referendum) to remove Due Process from a class of persons.  DOMA was a Federal law.  Romer had no bearing on Windsor.



> However Windsor affirmed the right to determine marriage is the purview of the State.



No it didn't.  It affirmed that if States say "Yes" to Same-sex Civil Marriage then it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to say know with the intent to discriminate against homosexuals.  It did not address whether it was constitutional for the States to say "No".  That will be a different case.

This is the same opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in his writings on the Windsor decision:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majoritys analysis 
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its 
analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and 
the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether 
the States, in the exercise of their historic and essential authority 
to define the marital relation, ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage."​



> However Windsor affirmed the right to determine marriage is the purview of the State.



Within, to quote the decision, the confines of "Constitutional guarantees".  If marriage was totally within the purview of the States, then the Loving decision would have been ruled in favor of the States that barred interracial marriage.

But the ruling was against the States.


****************************

Unlike some, I don't claim to know how the SCOTUS will rule once they decide to take a case.  DOMA wasn't the case and they punted on the Prop 8 case even after submitting the question on "standing" to the California Supreme Court and then ignoring their response (i.e. proponents did have standing).

Personally I don't think the court wants to take a SSCM case yet, they want it to peculate for a few more years so that more states can reverse their decade old actions on Marriage Equality.  Quite a few gains were made in 2012 and 2013 and it looks like there will be two more states with SSCM on the ballot in 2014 (possibly Indiana & Ohio).

We can pretty much guess that Breyer, Sotomayor, Kegan, and Ginsburg would vote to support Marriage Equality.  Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would vote against.  That leave, as is often the case, Kennedy as the swing vote.  He was the Justice that wrote the Lawrence decision (Sodomy laws are unconstitutional), the Romer decision (States can remove equal protections from homosexuals overturning the Bowers decision), and he wrote the Windsor decision stating  "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

If the case comes before the court under the current structure, there is cause to believe that Marriage Equality will be upheld.

Personally, I'd have wished supporters of SSCM to have held off for a few more years before pushing the challenge through the courts.  The people of Maine did it the right way, IMHO, they changed the hearts and mind of the people and reversed the law at the ballot box.  If that had also been done with California the strategic victory would have been much greater then the tactical victory of winning in the courts.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > JakeStarkey said:
> >
> >
> > > I live in downtowns SLC, you reactionary poo flinger, only five blocks from Temple Square.  I graduated from Utah State a lifetime ago.
> ...



OMG, you can't be this crazy can you ? LOL


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> ...



Has nothing to do at all with anything being compared with each other in the ways that you are trying to mock us with or to compare things with in this way.  Ummm, you might want to look up mockery in the Bible, and when you do, umm then you might want to choose another profession just sayin. If you use one thing out of the Bible to empower yourself with, then you are also guilty or either in respect of the rest that is in the word as well. No cherry picking for empowering purposes in which are evil in the intent, or you might just find yourself condemned by your own actions in the end just as well.  

I think that this is yet another feeble attempt by those who are up against it now when see these kinds of actions in response to, and it is being done to try and hold on for all that they have attempted on us over the years, but they are slipping now, and they know it as desperation sets in.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Jude is the New Testament and singled out the story of Sodom as a current and ongoing theme of modern Christianity.  It didn't single out pork, shrimp etc..  It singled out specifically the eternal damnation of Sodom and cities/states like Sodom slated for the punishment of the _current_ mortal sin of homosexuality and its enablers.  If you are a christian, mormon or muslim, go ahead and promote or vote for gay marriage, if you don't mind the eternal flames of the Pit of Fire...
> ...



Pray tell, what other part of the New Testament will the Harvey Milk club redact?  
Why stop with the dire warnings in Jude for enablers of homosexuality via the lesson of the destruction of the city of Sodom and all those within sent to eternal damnation?

It isn't like Jude's message is a mild one, a suggestion.  It is the highest of warnings to the faithful.  You don't get worse than eternal damnation for failing to heed.

So it's a mortal sin.

It isn't up for redaction by any current-theme or social fad.

And on your smooth talk and urgings to the faithful to disregard the warning, the Bible's New Testament has something to say about that too:



> Jude:
> 
> 8. Likewise also *these filthy dreamers *defile the flesh, *despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities*....
> 
> ...



If you stand by and allow the forbidden to flourish and enable it with your vote or support, be prepared to put on your fire suit because you're going down with the rest of them to that Lake of Fire.  Ignore the "hard speeches".  Turn a deaf ear to the "great swelling words" of those who walk "after their own lusts" who are "separate" from God, "sensual, having not the Spirit"...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 14, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional._"
> ...



That has exactly the same chance of happening as the Indianapolis Colts winning the Super Bowl this year.


----------



## rdean (Jan 14, 2014)

I wonder what it is about gay people that right wingers hate so much?  Perhaps because God gave gay people talent?  Or because he made conservatives the least interesting people in the history of the world?  I wouldn't mess with people God gave so much talent to.  He did it for a reason.  Probably because he likes them.  If he liked conservatives, he would have given them talent.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 14, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You are probably right.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2014)

rdean said:


> I wonder what it is about gay people that right wingers hate so much?  Perhaps because God gave gay people talent?  Or because he made conservatives the least interesting people in the history of the world?  I wouldn't mess with people God gave so much talent to.  He did it for a reason.  Probably because he likes them.  If he liked conservatives, he would have given them talent.



"Hate"?  I think "are concerned about" is a far better description of what's going on.

And as luck would have it, I have at least one quick answer that sums it up:  Harvey Milk iconizing.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


I wonder what his odds would be on Revelations finally being fulfilled as was written, and this be it sooner and/or later ? You think he looks at that as in comparison of in the same ways maybe or maybe he was just speaking in frustration about why people don't get together on these issues better, and to make changes happen for themselves better, just like others are doing or have done now over time ? Hmmmm.


----------



## SalaamAkir (Jan 14, 2014)

Personally, I do not support discrimination against homosexuals, but neither do I support government approval of gay marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > *Your threatening tone is noted.*
> ...



Biblical literalism as taught by evangelicals and fundamentalists is heresy to the great majority of Christianity.  You folks are in the small minority.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



You may preach your reactionary evangelicalism all you want, but it is still heresy.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

SalaamAkir said:


> Personally, I do not support discrimination against homosexuals, but neither do I support government approval of gay marriage.


Good call, but they don't see the two as being inseparable now, and so they fear that if one is against gay marriage now, then he or she is going to also be for the discrimination of gays or at least that is how it will be played by them in order to empower their agenda on these matters farther.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Says you with no stats to back you up..LOL


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


And so you are betting or should I say* HOPING *that it is hearsay. LOL


----------



## Barb (Jan 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your Honor, please accept into  the record as Defense Exhibit 13B43n18 a copy of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."



I must pass around some rep before giving it to Jake Starkey again...but I owe ya


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 15, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Yup, they do.  Baptists, Methodists, and the reformed Churches make up about 7% of the world wide Christian membership.

http://www.888c.com/WorldChristianDenominations.htm


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 15, 2014)




----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jesus never spoke on the issue, and only the minority of Christians who are heretics believe in biblical literalism.  In other words, the writers are writing for themselves, not Jesus.



Jake is licensed in Utah to speak for Jesus.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


>


And to what do you attribute this shift?

Education?

Propaganda?

Browbeating?

Increased tolerance?

Spiritual or intellectual enlightenment?

Increased fear of political incorrectness and the social penalties attendant?

Disgust with liberal government drift towards legitimization of homosexuality?

Resignation that the government won't hold its ground so there's no point resisting any longer?

Lack of organization?

Exhaustion from years of being bombarded with faux political correctness arguments?

Maturing of a new generation of so-called metrosexuals that lacks the same backbone as its predecessors?

The 97% haven't been pushed far enough yet by the 3% to react substantively and collectively?

Biased polling of interpreting or reporting entities trying to jump on the bandwagon in order to be seen backing the trend de jour?

Polling mostly in urban areas with a higher density of Gays and Gay-tolerant folk than the burbs and the farmlands?

Some combination of the above?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


>





Sort of ruined by this.

Report: Students jokingly claim to be gay in national survey, 70 percent are straight

Even West Hollywood has been forced to remove the rainbow flag.  The Abbey is trying to change its rep from a gay bar to a family friendly place where gay grinding is no longer popular.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I'll tell y'all one thing that will make those little old numbers plummet up there.  A simple reading from The Mayor of Castro Street, The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts.

You can start with page 180 and branch out from there...

You know, do a live panel and ask audience members questions.  Have gays up on stage, ask them some questions about how they justify iconizing a serial child-sodomizer.  Things like that.


----------



## Barb (Jan 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



A (plurality, if not the majority of) a  generation of kids born during the baby boom that managed to resist getting their natural born critical thinking kicked out of them at home, at school, and at church who raised their generations of kids to question, question, question every assumption. They aren't buying into the bullshit that a "loving god" hates everyone that uncle Frank hates.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 15, 2014)

Uncle Frank and Sil are on the losing end.


----------



## Barb (Jan 15, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You should be familiar with this, as you participated in the thread (and so long ago, sil, you really need to find something relevant to your own life):

Californians Set to Boycott Harvey Milk Day - Page 4 (politics) 



> And characterizing him as a "child hawk" when his youngest boyfriend was 16 (nearly 17), *an age legal in most states*... just strikes me as judgement based more on a desire to demonize him than to judge him fairly. In so doing, they hope to apply guilt by association, suggesting that anyone who acknowledges Harvey Milk must also be supporting pedophilia.
> [...]
> I do think many of the judgements against him are exaggerated and opportunistic, and intent on painting all gays as pedophiles by association. [...]


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 15, 2014)

Barb said:


> You should be familiar with this, as you participated in the thread (and so long ago, sil, you really need to find something relevant to your own life):
> 
> Californians Set to Boycott Harvey Milk Day - Page 4 (politics)
> 
> ...



Keep defending him...

This is EASY..lol...  Nothing like autopilot to take the load off my back.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




Gays not hiding, coming out. 

It's hard to look a loved one in the face and say "you don't deserve the same rights as me".


----------



## Barb (Jan 15, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > You should be familiar with this, as you participated in the thread (and so long ago, sil, you really need to find something relevant to your own life):
> ...



Beware, and be aware, of your crutches, kid. They'll cripple you. 

No, on the other hand, sink deep into that warm, welcoming, solitary comfort afforded by privilege you don't even acknowledge you're defending, much less that it  exists. someone will be along to feed, change, and reposition you shortly. 

You should probably keep your mouth shut though, or hope you can - the people performing these services may very well be the ones you want to deny rights to.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 15, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




What?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 15, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> I thought you wanted to promote the stability of our society?



You don't do that by providing a loophole in marriage for people to access orphaned kids who as a cultural-whole have elevated a child sex predator as their "sexual poster boy" for their "civil rights movement".

You DO realize what the Harvey Milk Cult will do the moment they get nationwide marriage don't you?  They will insist that anyone preventing them from adopting orphaned kids is "a bigot/homophobe/hater etc." and they will sue and win because they've gotten the golden stamp of federal approval for their religion via marriage..

Have you read the biography of Harvey Milk?  His biography reads like Jerry Sandusky's indictment file.  If I was an attorney for people's rights to determine parameters for marriage in their respective state, I'd just slap a copy of "The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk", a copy of the California law requiring kids in public schools to celebrate his political/sexual "achievements" and a Harvey Milk US postage stamp on the desk in front of each Justice and speak to the Court saying "Your Honor's, I rest my case".  Then I'd zip up my briefcase, straighten my tie and walk right out of the courtroom.

If they could at that point, do a sweeping federal blessing on gay marriage and strip the rights of each state to protect their custodial orphans from this child-diddler cult, then there is no point in keeping the CAPTA laws in place.  They should just save time and repeal them at the same time and all laws in each state protecting children from sexual predators.

It's very very very unfortunate for the LGBT culture club that they choose a child-sodomizer for their civil rights icon.  And it's even more unfortunate that they, in spite of knowing this about him, continue to elevate him publicly as their representative.  He will be their undoing.  Or rather, they will be their own undoing.  Get it?


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 15, 2014)

Barb said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


He hates not the sinner, but yet detest the sin in which is allowed in by the sinner. Now why does he concern himself with sin like this ? It is because he knows what the condition of sinfulness will bring to an individual if left alone for to long. He as well as us know that very bad things come as a result of such things always, and also he knows what it will do to the individual over time if there are no warnings or answers given to the individual about such things that do hurt them over time. The individual may seek such answers when all is on the fritz for that individual, who is dabbling in such things as sin, and also who has found out  the harm that it brings to one regardless of who they may be in their life. Sin does not discriminate within it's outcomes as found upon the individual, and this no matter who they are in their life. It is an equal opportunity condition, and any one can play the game of sin in their lives freely, but be willing also to suffer the consequences and the losses it loves to cast upon the players when all is said and done.  

He tries to warn and save the individual from visiting sin in ways that ultimately lays waste to the individual over time, but if the individual ignores the warnings for way to long it can get dicey for them, and also it can ensnare others who are unaware as to how bad things can be for them if they also allow it in to their lives as well. They must heed the warnings and the signs though, and not bury their heads in the sand about these things. The devil loves to get two for the price of one always, and that is his ultimate game in which he plays, and it gives him his gain in all of this, but it doesn't have to be this way at all. We have the irrefutable evidence showing these things to be true right before our very eyes, yet we choose to let others fool us as they work for the evil one himself.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 15, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you wanted to promote the stability of our society?
> ...


Good reading.. wow!


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 15, 2014)

You mean the biography of Milk?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 15, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...




did you read it?  Take note that the courts decision has nothing to do with "morals" or religious beliefs.  It is concerned with its ability to enforce some state laws.

So I dont see this as a moral victory.,


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 15, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> did you read it?  Take note that the courts decision has nothing to do with "morals" or religious beliefs.  It is concerned with its ability to enforce some state laws.
> 
> So I dont see this as a moral victory.,



"Some state laws"?  You mean like the law Utah voted in that defines marriage as between a man and a woman?  That law?

Because the identical argument was used by California Clerks who were alarmed they had to defy their state law to placate rogue public officials under threat of termination if they didn't do so.  Their pleas for a stay and appeal were immediately and unceremoniously denied. 

This is going to be very problematic for the Utah case and may have ramifications for California as well.

"Some state laws"...indeed.... Like Prop 8 say?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 15, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > did you read it?  Take note that the courts decision has nothing to do with "morals" or religious beliefs.  It is concerned with its ability to enforce some state laws.
> ...



what is said below is correct, despite anyones religious affiliations.  The state has no authority to do most of what it does but the only way it can be stopped is by people going broke fighting the mob [them] in court.  

The american legal system is a travesty and a failure.

*DOMA Opinion, Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the States broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce....  In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them...  Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality.*


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious  progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.



Have you ever stopped to consider that it may not be inevitable?  Let's talk about Utah for a minute.  Christians, mormons and muslims, as a matter of their 1st Amendment rights, have faith and know that to enable homosexuliaty brings about eternal damnation, as set forth in the lesson of Jude, New Testament.  It gave the example of the city of Sodom with its inhabitants that sought "strange flesh" where in the Koran it cited that men lay with men "as their wives".  Not just the gays in that town, but all the people that turned a blind eye or worse, supported them, everyone, was thrown into the pit of fire forever.

The Bible has few examples of eternal damnation for a sin.  There are venial [minor] sins, cardinal [medium] sins and mortal [radical] sins.  For some reason, the Bible and the Koran have elevated a homosexual-promoting culture as "mortal":worthy of the worst punishment for the soul.

As Utah's 2/3rds majority squares off with gays, the matter will be a clear and concise freedom of religion in the 1st vs a very longshot hopeful "equality" stab at the 14th.

I say, gays will fail at the 14th since they are behavioral, not a "race" and therefore subject to local laws and customs.  Children ensconced in gay households will not be harmed by not allowing these people to marry.  The fact that gays and lesbians as a group revere Harvey Milk, child sex predator, as their civil rights leader, kills off any hope they have of pretending to be about the welfare of children.

When Utah is reaffirmed as being able to set its own parameters for marriage based on the fact of the 1st Amendment & in Windsor that each state has a sovereign right to do so retroactive to the founding of the country, strange dominoes will fall.  Particularly, California's county clerk's identical arguments will apply.  Prop 8 will be instantly enforceable law that clerks must follow there.  And nobody but nobody can order them to defy it since to do so means they can be put in jail.

When the states that had gay marriage forced against their constitution are wiped off the gay-marriage map, the numbers will fall to just I think three states with "legal gay marriage".  The arguments slated to come out urging gay marriage to be quelled where it is not legally enacted by consensus, as Windsor describes, will be quite scathing.  I will not tire of saying that the Harvey Milk problem is HUGE for gays and lesbians.  Monumental.  Worshipping a child sex predator is not going to win them any friends in even the states where the people voted in gay marraige weren't aware at the time they did, that Harvey Milk "embodies the LGBT movement across the nation and the world."  Or that kids in California are required to celebrate his sexuality in public schools now.

It would be the same as not knowing what Jerry Sandusky was up to, voting for a group who iconizes him [who know well what he was up to] to gain access to orphaned kids and then later finding out what Sandusky, and this group, stood for...

So your optimism is not well founded.  I hope you are bracing yourself for an alternative ending to your dream...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> As Utah's 2/3rds majority squares off with gays, the matter will be a clear and concise freedom of religion in the 1st vs a very longshot hopeful "equality" stab at the 14th.
> 
> I say, gays will fail at the 14th since they are behavioral, not a "race" and therefore subject to local laws and customs.




I don't claim to know how the SCOTUS will decide if the Utah case is laid before them, but the Romer decision shows that you are incorrect about the court not applying the 14th Amendment to homosexuals.


Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2014)

I didn't say that.  Gays are the ones famous for saying "this is a matter of formality, it's in the bag/inevitable so get used to it".  What I am saying is that gays need to pull off the rose colored glasses as to the weight of facts in Harvey Milk vs Utah...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> I didn't say that.  Gays are the ones famous for saying "this is a matter of formality, it's in the bag/inevitable so get used to it".  What I am saying is that gays need to pull off the rose colored glasses as to the weight of facts in Harvey Milk vs Utah...



You didn't say "I say, gays will fail at the 14th since they are behavioral, not a "race" and therefore subject to local laws and customs."?

That is the statement to which I responded, yes the SCOTUS has already shown they are willing to rule unconstitutional laws which target homosexuals.  Your statement that homosexuality is a "behavior" and not a "race" and therefore is not subject to constitutionalists protections is false.


There is no case for "Harvey Milk vs Utah", you continued use of Milk is a fallacy (i.e. "position the well" fallacy) which has no more merit then a childish attempt to paint all homosexuals as some type of molesters.  An argument that will never see the inside of a courtroom for serious consideration.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> You didn't say "I say, gays will fail at the 14th since they are behavioral, not a "race" and therefore subject to local laws and customs."?
> 
> That is the statement to which I responded, yes the SCOTUS has already shown they are willing to rule unconstitutional laws which target homosexuals.  Your statement that homosexuality is a "behavior" and not a "race" and therefore is not subject to constitutionalists protections is false.
> 
> ...



No, Harvey Milk is the iconic sexual leader of the sexual cult known as LGBT.  He is, therefore, according to their own appointment, fair game in all conversations concerning their sexuality and behaviors.  Particularly the legal angle gays have already pitched as to "the children that will be "harmed" if the gays they're ensconced with cannot marry".  The point of bringing up Harvey Milk will be one of credibility as to that stance.  In other words, how can we take as credible that argument made by people who have elevated a child predator who officiated as a minor boy's father no less as he was sodomizing him, to "our civil rights icon".  It will be very pertinent and admissable evidence I'm afraid..

I did say they will fail at the 14th.  Partly because one of the Justices already alluded to this in the Hearing last year.  Theirs is an incomplete deviant sexual group whose behaviors dont' include all the possibilities for the 14th to cover properly.

And they mentioned Loving in DOMA, then went on to say gay marriage was "only allowed' "in some states". 

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th.  Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote.  They may still do that.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.  Gays just don't qualify for the 14th.  Behaviors don't.  Sorry.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th.  Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote.  They may still do that.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.  Gays just don't qualify for the 14th.  Behaviors don't.  Sorry.




Yet the 14th was that basis for the Romer decision when Colorado passed a State Constitutional Amendment targeting homosexuals.

Sorry, the 14th has already applied to homosexuals by the SCOTUS.


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th.  Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote.  They may still do that.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.  Gays just don't qualify for the 14th.  Behaviors don't.  Sorry.
> ...



Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.

But instead it affirmed its a State right, Federally acknowledged in States where legal


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.




The 14th Amendment concerns States, Windsor being the DOMA case involved Federal law so it was dealt with under the 5th Amendment.

There was no question presented in the Windsor case that concerned State law.  The State in question had Same-sex Civil Marriage, the Federal government recognized only some legal Civil Marriages from that State.  The question to the court addressed Federal law not State law.

The SCOTUS does not arbitrarily address laws that are not presented in the case before them.


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.
> ...



SCOTUS based _Windsor_ on the principled affirmation that marriage is the purview of the States and Federal benefits will be recognized in STATES where the STATE has determined gay marriage is legal.

You, like Seawitch, believe that because Windosr was not "State specific" in its express cause of action, the legal rational to decide Windsor in no way relied on or affirmed the specific State right to determine marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




And you'll keep believing that until the next case hits the SCOTUS. They're stacking up fast. Go 10th!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



No disagreement there.  Pretty well sums up the Windsor decision.  In this case the State said "Yes", the Federal government had no basis to say "No" for homosexuals.



OODA_Loop said:


> You, like Seawitch, believe that because Windosr was not "State specific" in its express cause of action, the legal rational to decide Windsor in no way relied on or affirmed the specific State right to determine marriage.



To rephase, Windsor did not address the ability of a State to say "No", it only address the idea that if - in this case - the State said "Yes" there there was no basis for the Federal government to say no except for the desire to exclude homosexuals from equal treatment under the law under the principals of Due Process and Equal Treatment as applied to the Federal government by the 5th Amendment...

Then yes, that is what I believe.  However it is just not me that thinks the Windsor case was limited to Federal law regarding States that said "yes" and did not address States that said "No".  The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme court said - in essence - the same thing.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> You mean the biography of Milk?


No what you wrote in your post in which I agreed with...sheesh!


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So the next case they are going to say: *Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?*

I am not certain that is a lock.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th.  Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote.  They may still do that.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.  Gays just don't qualify for the 14th.  Behaviors don't.  Sorry.
> ...



Then why didn't DOMA/Prop 8 just conclude that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and be done with it?  Why did they allow and reiterate a hundred times under the context and question of gay marriage being legal, or not,  that states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves since the founding of the country?  Why did they issue a stay in Utah?

These questions are very curious indeed.

Says OODA__Loop:



> So the next case they are going to say: Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?
> 
> I am not certain that is a lock.



Exactly.  Given how many times they reiterated a state's right and power and authority on defining marriage in DOMA/Windsor, they would essentially be reversing that Opinion in less than a year's time.  Not a common practice for SCOTUS as I understand the history of the Court's practices...


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

Since it is a religious issue, to be Constitutionally equal,
the marriage policies could NEITHER BAN NOR ENDORSE gay marriage
and claim to separate religious policy from government.

Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage, or take marriage completely out of state jursdiction and policy,
only govern civil contracts for custody, estates, probate and property/financial agreements,
and keep marriage private with people's personal church religion or institution of their choice.

Once you start pushing either a forced BAN or forced INCLUSION
then the state is making a religious decision. If so, the people need to agree
religiously or it is unconstitutional.



Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



In the separate cases...

1.  DOMA said that such authority was subject to constitutional guarantees.  The Windsor case did not address whether States could say "No", only that the Federal government must recognize States that say "Yes".

2.  In Prop 8 they punted to dismiss it on standing.  By (a) dismissing the case and standing, (b) vacating the 9th decision, and (c) leaving the Disctirct Courts ruling and the final decision - they crafted a narrow compromise that fit only the unique circumstances of California.  It's not uncommon for the court to wait for a "clean" case to reach them.  Which the Utah case might be, or depending on the rule of four, might not - we won't know for about a year.

3.  The issued the stay to allow the appeals process to move forward - IMHO - it was the right thing to do.  Judge Shelby should have issued a stay with the decision pending appeal.  I think not doing so was a bad decision.​


Silhouette said:


> These questions are very curious indeed.



Not really.


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage



My State defined marriage as between a man and a woman in its' constitution.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




I am...since they only ruled, in Windsor, on the states that said yes.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Says OODA__Loop:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They said that Civil Marriage was within the purview of the States but still subject to constitutional guarantees.  Whether those guarantees apply to marriages based on gender is yet to be determined.

But if Civil Marriage was totally beyond the scope of the 14th, then the court would have erred in the Loving decision.  That case shows that States must still function withing the scope of the Constitution.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage
> ...




Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th.  Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote.  They may still do that.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.  Gays just don't qualify for the 14th.  Behaviors don't.  Sorry.
> ...



Perhaps, with some people it is just an external behavior.
With others it is spiritually how they were born and are in life.
Who they are, and how they and their "soul mates" are incarnated is
their spiritual process; it is part of their identity as human beings.

Either way, it is a religious/spiritual matter to distinguish this, which is private.
There is no way "legal process" to determine it without invading privacy,
and no crime has been committed so you cannot force witnesses to testify. 

so the state has no business making such decisions. the people need to 
resolve these issues personally case by case and/or keep it out of public policy.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So a state can say YES but can't say NO ?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Either way, it is a religious/spiritual matter to distinguish this, which is private.



My state's constitutional amendment defining marriage was not religious based.

My personal objection to gay marriage is not religious.

Be gay all you want.

The State does not have to sanction or legitimize your free and legal choice.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Yes, so the people of these states need to agree what the policies are at the state level. And what to keep at the private level if they do not agree.

I suggest not to wait to the point of voting or going to court to make the decision.
If people already know what they believe or don't believe, then write the laws out
to include and represent that equally.  Where people don't agree, it makes sense to write out a process so they can follow different policies without imposing any conflict. 

Similar to having general state rules for how to incorporate a nonrprofit or religious organization. But then leave the private policies to each group to decide separately.
They don't have to legislate all policies for all the different groups. It is natural for Hindus and Buddhists follow to different religious practices from the Muslims and Christians. Yet all of these religious organizations still follow some basic laws or rules when they incorporate under the State. They don't have to agree on all their private policies or practices beyond that point.

This should have been done with the Boy Scouts also. Have a general policy at the top that doesn't ban or force the issue one way or another.
And then let each separate group decide for itself depending on its membership base.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, it is a religious/spiritual matter to distinguish this, which is private.
> ...



If it is based on your PERSONAL values, beliefs or preferences, I'm saying that is the same thing "legally" as having an equal religious preference that is protected by law.

Being prochoice is not "officially a religion."
But it is a personal viewpoint, which I weigh as equally protected as a religious belief is.

If we treated all views with equal respect and inclusion, we could clean up politics out of government, keep private decisions private, and reserve govt for purely public policies that everyone agrees represents common interests. The rest can be managed in private so we quit fighting over pushing biases into public policy. That's what is causing the problems.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> If it is based on your PERSONAL values, beliefs or preferences, I'm saying that is the same thing "legally" as having an equal religious preference that is protected by law.



All law is based on personal values, which values drive the election of the officials who make the laws.

Those values can be diametric to religious dogma or teachings.

Be gay.  A state can decide it is not going to sanction it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 16, 2014)

"You don't do that by providing a loophole in marriage for people to access orphaned kids who as a cultural-whole have elevated a child sex predator as their "sexual poster boy" for their "civil rights movement".

You are as sick as koshergrl, sis.  Heterosexuals abuse children far greater numbers than homosexuals.

By this moronic logic, then all marriage should be considered pedophilia shelters.

Step off!


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Race is a protected class.

Gay is not.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




"Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."

***

"Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances that the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies."

***

"Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991)."

***

"Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. "

***

"Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."

***

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "



Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


*********************************************************

We'll have to see if the SCOTUS continues to identify them as a class of persons singled out for unequal treatment under the law and whether that action is Constitutional.

Everyone know, well at least those not interesting in semantic games (which doesn't appear to include you...) that bans on Same-sex Civil Marriage were specifically enacted to deny a class of persons (i.e. homosexuals) equal access and protections under the law.

>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Well they could have used that rational in _Windsor_ and been done with it for good.

They said it was a state purview.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




"No" hasn't been heard by the SCOTUS...but the no states do keep losing.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




They can't rule on a question that wasn't before them in Windsor.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No but they can affirm other concepts of law in order to determine the matter before them .

In _Windsor_ that affirmation was the state can approve gay marriage and that being within their purview, meant Windsor's Federal benefits cannot be denied to her spouse and DOMA was unconstitutional because the STATE ALLOWED the gay marriage.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).
> 
> 
> >>>>



That was about race, not sexual behaviors, age or incest.  See the difference?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Windsor was not a State law case, it was a Federal law case.



OODA_Loop said:


> They said it was a state purview.



They also said it was subject to "constitutional guarantees", they have not reviewed a case and issued a decision where that is the core question.

From the Windsor decision:

"Section 3 is at issue here. It amends the Dictionary Act
in Title 1, §7, of the United States Code to provide a fed-
eral definition of marriage and spouse.​

Windsor was a case about United States code (i.e. Federal law) and not the Revised Statutes of the State of New York which enacted Marriage Equality in that State.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




In Windsor they said that State Civil Marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees, they did not address what (if any) those were in that decision.  As Chief Justice Roberts said in the Windsor document that "that" question will be in another case.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).
> ...




The claim was that the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals.  The Romer decision shows that is incorrect, homosexuals are covered by the 14th.  The SCOTUS already acknowledged that.



>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > As Utah's 2/3rds majority squares off with gays, the matter will be a clear and concise freedom of religion in the 1st vs a very longshot hopeful "equality" stab at the 14th.
> ...



Funny, I could have sworn it applied it to the state.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say that.  Gays are the ones famous for saying "this is a matter of formality, it's in the bag/inevitable so get used to it".  What I am saying is that gays need to pull off the rose colored glasses as to the weight of facts in Harvey Milk vs Utah...
> ...



Let me explain what happened, Colorado declared that some people have fewer rights than others. That is flat out unconstitutional, and wrong. The court did not use the facts of the case to extend protections to homosexuals, it prohibited the state from denying them protections based on whatever criteria the state wanted to use.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I respect your analysis but feel you discredit the state affirmation in _Windsor._

It really is and always has been a State matter, just as they relied upon in Windsor.

From the decision:



> _*This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.*_



Thus, the Windsor decision rests on an amalgam of constitutional principles.  If the federal government had plenary or primary authority over the definition of marriage, then perhaps DOMA would have been constitutional, but it also would have been unnecessary, because Congress could have controlled the issue!  Congress has known from the beginning that its members don&#8217;t have primary authority over marriage, as evidenced by the fact they enacted DOMA, and not a law that mandated marriage between a man and a woman.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th.  Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote.  They may still do that.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.  Gays just don't qualify for the 14th.  Behaviors don't.  Sorry.
> ...



The 14th Amendment applies to governments, not people. If you don't believe me, read it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall ... deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​The ellipses are there because the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says in the Slaughter-House cases.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> I respect your analysis but feel you discredit the state affirmation in _Windsor._
> 
> It really is and always has been a State matter, just as they relied upon in Windsor.
> 
> ...




I'm not trying to "discredit" Windsor, just showing it's context.  A context that the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court confirms:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority&#8217;s 
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to 
point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does 
not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, 
the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of 
their &#8220;historic and essential authority to define the marital 
relation,&#8221; ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional 
definition of marriage"

~~Chief Justice Roberts​

Unlike others, I don't make claims about how a future case is going to come out.  Right now one can assume that the court is 4, 4, and 1 with the liberal Justices on one side, the conservative Justices on the other and Justice Kennedy will be the deciding factor.  Since he authored Lawrence (anti sodomy unconstitutional), Romer (law targeting homosexual unconstitutional), and Windsor (Federal discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional) - I'm just saying it ain't over.

>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Incorrect. 

Race is a suspect class, where laws seeking to deny African Americans their civil liberties, for example, are usually subject to a level of judicial review known as strict scrutiny. 

Sexual orientation is a protected class, where laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, for example, are subject to one of two levels of judicial review, rational basis or intermediate scrutiny.  

In _Romer_, for example, Amendment 2 failed to survive a rational basis review, and was invalidated accordingly. 

The states are at liberty to place limits on our civil rights  provided those limitations are rationally based, are supported by objective, documented evidence in support, pursue a proper legislative end, and do not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons. 

Laws designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria, such laws seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> It really is and always has been a State matter...



True. 

And ideally the states should obey the 14th Amendment and allow same-sex couples to avail themselves of the contract law that is marriage; contracts theyve always been eligible to participate in.   

In many states, unfortunately, that is not the case, and those adversely effected have no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sexual orientation is a protected class, where laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, for example, are subject to one of two levels of judicial review, rational basis or intermediate scrutiny.



Marriage is not a civil liberty.

Of course you can't deny someone civil liberties because they are gay.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the *SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling*. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...


The Supreme Court did not overrule the lower court.  It issued a temporary order blocking new gay marriages and giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.
There's a big difference.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 16, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > It really is and always has been a State matter...
> ...



Agreed SCOTUS will most likely settle the 14th question.

And all precedent, including other SCOTUS decisions are pure 10th.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 16, 2014)

In a Republic the people decide what is and is not a "proper legislative end".  Those suing government "of by and for the people" should be the ones on whom the burden of proof is put.  The colonies fought a revolution in part to get away from British judge made law. 

Also marriage comes with some 100s of law provisions or so said a Hollywood activist I heard. Do Gay-marriage advocates even know themselves if they want all these provisions? If the courts are really going to do their duty they need to examine each of these provisions piece by piece. 

this isnt about equal treatment under the law or the gay-marriage advocates would be asking that no persons receive tax breaks merely due to relationship status.  What this is about now is partly just an emotional crusade and partly the gay-marriage advocates wanting to rub the court decisions in the face of religious folks who dont agree with them.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 16, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...




That's not true.  I can think of two cases off the top of my head that involved marriage and were based on the 14th Amendment:

Loving v Virginia (1967) = 14th Amendment
Loving v. Virginia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) = 14th Amendment
Zablocki v. Redhail - 434 U.S. 374 (1978) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
&#8220;Wisconsin statute providing that any resident of that State "having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment" may not marry without a court approval order, which cannot be granted absent a showing that the support obligation has been met and that children covered by the support order "are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges," held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 434 U. S. 383-391.&#8221;​

The court even noted in Windsor that one of the cases which had overturned State marriage laws as part of ensuring that State laws were subject to constitutional guarantees was the Loving case.


>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 16, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> *In a Republic the people decide what is and is not a "proper legislative end". * Those suing government "of by and for the people" should be the ones on whom the burden of proof is put.  The colonies fought a revolution in part to get away from British judge made law.
> 
> Also marriage comes with some 100s of law provisions or so said a Hollywood activist I heard. Do Gay-marriage advocates even know themselves if they want all these provisions? If the courts are really going to do their duty they need to examine each of these provisions piece by piece.
> 
> this isnt about equal treatment under the law or the gay-marriage advocates would be asking that no persons receive tax breaks merely due to relationship status.  What this is about now is partly just an emotional crusade and partly the gay-marriage advocates wanting to rub the court decisions in the face of religious folks who dont agree with them.



Incorrect. 

In a *democracy* the people decide what is and is not a proper legislative end, thankfully the United States is not a democracy, its a Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject to the rule of law, not men  as men are incapable of ruling justly. 

Utahs Amendment 3 is proof of that, and it was invalidated accordingly.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 16, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > *In a Republic the people decide what is and is not a "proper legislative end". * Those suing government "of by and for the people" should be the ones on whom the burden of proof is put.  The colonies fought a revolution in part to get away from British judge made law.
> ...



note I quoted the Republican party's Abe Lincoln with the phrase "of, by, and for the people"    

see my pics that comment on the nature of Republics, Your idea of Republic is wrong, It comes from the Latin for Res Publica the public thing.    

who decides the law? .... that is the question


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 16, 2014)

_Windsor _means nothing when the question was not before SCOTUS.

Sotomayor is carefully building a 6-3 or 7-2 majority to put this question to rest.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _Windsor _means nothing when the question was not before SCOTUS.
> 
> Sotomayor is carefully building a 6-3 or 7-2 majority to put this question to rest.



You think this SCOTUS is going to be the one to force gay and polygamy marriage on Utah 6-3 or 7-2 eh?

Windsor apparently DOES mean something because when Utah's AG cited it to get a stay, he got a stay...

Why, do you suppose?  Why did DOMA not put the matter to rest and just mandate gay marriage across the 50 instead of saying gay marriage was up to each state by inaction, and direct repeated reference to affirm state powers in marriage over and over and over?  Why was the overturn in Oklahoma packaged with a stay in place?  What's that all about?  If you're going to overturn a law, you don't go and overturn your overturn all in the same Opinion!

Something is fishy in Denmark.  It's high time gays pay close attention to the progression of what's happening, the wording in Windsor and all this unexplained stay business.  If there was a solid 7-2 SCOTUS in favor of forcing gay marriage on the states, they sure have a funny way of going about that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 16, 2014)

There is no "forcing" anything on the states.  The states can determine marriage within the limits of the 14th Amendment: Utah, Oklahoma, and New Mexico are in the soup because of that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no "forcing" anything on the states.  The states can determine marriage within the limits of the 14th Amendment: Utah, Oklahoma, and New Mexico are in the soup because of that.



Correct. 

The states are not being forced to do anything, as they were in the wrong in the first place by enacting un-Constitutional legislation  legislation they knew full well to indeed be un-Constitutional per _Perry_.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no "forcing" anything on the states.  The states can determine marriage within the limits of the 14th Amendment: Utah, Oklahoma, and New Mexico are in the soup because of that.



How does the 14th apply to the Harvey-Milkers? [LGBT/same-sexers]

And, how does the 14th apply to the kids Harvey Milk was sodomizing while they were orphaned and on drugs?

Whose rights take precedence in the US?  Orphaned children?  Or the Harvey Milk subculture that wants first-tier access to adopting them via marriage?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _Windsor _means nothing when the question was not before SCOTUS.
> ...


I think SCOTUS will allow same sex couples in Utah to make the same commitment as heterosexual couples and eventually it will find all gay marriage bans unconstitutional.  It's just a question of time.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 17, 2014)

Flopper said:


> I think SCOTUS will allow same sex couples in Utah to make the same commitment as heterosexual couples and eventually it will find all gay marriage bans unconstitutional.  It's just a question of time.



Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader?  After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids?  If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 17, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I think SCOTUS will allow same sex couples in Utah to make the same commitment as heterosexual couples and eventually it will find all gay marriage bans unconstitutional.  It's just a question of time.
> ...



Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2014)

> If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?



You ask this when children are abused in far greater numbers by heterosexuals than homosexuals?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 17, 2014)

Utah Officials Allow Joint Tax Filing For Married Same-Sex Couples

Good news!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2014)

Utah had no choice.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "You don't do that by providing a loophole in marriage for people to access orphaned kids who as a cultural-whole have elevated a child sex predator as their "sexual poster boy" for their "civil rights movement".
> 
> You are as sick as koshergrl, sis.  Heterosexuals abuse children far greater numbers than homosexuals.
> 
> ...


Hey, and what you say might be also valid for another subject indeed, but right now they are talking about one subject in specific, so why muddy the waters like you do, unless you don't like the consensus being arrived at maybe, so is that it ?


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?
> 
> 
> 
> You ask this when children are abused in far greater numbers by heterosexuals than homosexuals?


Does this dismiss the issue of what the poster asked or is saying ? No it doesn't !  Both can be addressed and should be addressed for the safety of all children. One could be more harder than the other to find out about, because we consider a family where there is a man and a woman involved as the norm, but both are valid issues to address when it comes to children and their safety. If the poster is right, then the numbers could swing heavily in a different direction quickly, and this when allowing more and more lunacy into the fray against the children. So why place children in danger at all if we don't have to, otherwise by adding more trouble than they may already have now is what I'm asking you ?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?
> ...



The poster isn't right. Gays can already adopt and we are. 

Children need parents. Ideally, two parents. The gender of the parents is immaterial as study after study after study proves.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well.

Does this happen or is it hearsay ?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



They aren't. Where do you get this shit?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "You don't do that by providing a loophole in marriage for people to access orphaned kids who as a cultural-whole have elevated a child sex predator as their "sexual poster boy" for their "civil rights movement".
> ...



Step off, poser.  If one is talking about gays using marriage as a shelter to adopt children for bad purposes, then, yes, that opens it to heteroes doing the same thing.

Only a weak-minded doofus thinks differently.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Who knows?  It's not important unless YOU can come up with evidence that makes it so.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Who knows?  It's not important unless YOU can come up with evidence that makes it so.



The relevent evidence that is important is that the church of LGBT has as its Pope, Harvey Milk.  And his sexual preference for [multiple, maybe dozens even..he was quite promiscuous and promoted promiscuity as well] orphaned teen boys on drugs presents a gigantic problem for gays wanting to marry.  Milk even officiated as one minor boy's father figure while he was sodomizing him.

When confronted with these facts, gays defend instead of denounce Harvey Milk.  This makes a gigantic problem for them, collosal.  

When people get the privelege of marriage, they also elevate to the top tier of prospects to adopt orphaned children.  If a hetero married couple walked into an adoption agency wearing "free Jerry Sandusky" t-shirts, we would expect they would be denied without hesitation.  If a gay married couple walked in wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts, or sporting Harvey Milk postage stamps on their corresepondance to the adoption agency, we would expect they should also be denied on the same grounds.  Equality, right?  Or are straights the only ones who may not elevate a child sex predator to iconic status?  Gays are above the law in this respect?

This is just one of many secular ways gay marriage can't work in a civilized society.  The other would be the monkey-see, monkey-do phenomenon causing a sharp rise in youth 13-24 coming down with HIV in just the years gay marriage has been forced on several states by ignorant but well-meaning judicial activists.  Just because a person is a judge, doesn't mean they have a well-rounded education in sociology, behavioral neurology or psychology..

Then there's the religious issue.  Jude in the Bible says that a person who even enables a homosexual culture will be cast in the pit of fire along with that culture.  How can a state mandate require a christian or muslim to abandon the warning of mortal sin and abide by/enable a gay subculture taking over their state's mores?

Utah v Harvey Milk will be a very interesting case to see...


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 17, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > If it is based on your PERSONAL values, beliefs or preferences, I'm saying that is the same thing "legally" as having an equal religious preference that is protected by law.
> ...



I agree with you that laws are based on personal values.

Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to limit what constitutes
"religious dogma or teachings"

If Constitutionalists "believe religiously" in separating federal from state jurisdiction,
or secularists "believe in" separating church and state,
I argue those VIEWS should still be considered equally as a "religiously held belief" that deserves equal protection
as any other type of  "established" religion considered organized or official.

Otherwise, this unfairly discriminates against people "unless they are a member of a named group recognized as a religion"

The other factors that are important in deciding constitutional protections:
A. you cannot make other people pay for your views, but must accept financial and social responsibility for whatever options you are proposing
B. the change proposed must include solutions that don't impose either. (for example if you block or change abortion laws on the basis
of free choice from religious or political imposition, there must be agreed alternatives that don't impose a contested bias either)
any consequences of laws or reforms must be agreed to so it doesn't create other problems that impose
C. overall you can't go and commit the "same, equal and opposite wrong"
by defending your protected viewpoint in such a biased way that it then imposes on the view you were trying
to protect yourself from. big fat duh!

That is mainly why the pro-gay marriage advocacy fails.
not because people don't have equal right to defend gay marriage.
they just don't have the right to impose the beliefs on others,
especially if this is the gist of their defense arguments!

So that is why it is conflicting.

Gays may not be a protected group,
but people who are pro-gay should be equally a protected VIEW
as are people who are pro-Christian, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun.

The views are protected, regardless of the group or label.

Otherwise we are discriminating by whether you are part of a group or not!


----------



## bodecea (Jan 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Hearsay.   Most gay couples I know who adopt either have someone of the opposite gender, or if they adopt more than one, one of each gender.   But it's not any more a trend to pick one gender or another than it is with straight couples.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I doubt it is true.
However, I will say that I heard studies that show with single parents raising kids, the children tend to adjust and respond better when raised by the parent of the same gender.

It may be that the parent may feel more confident and less stress if the child is of the same gender; whereas some parents have extra fears and worries if they worry about providing what their child needs because of gender. It could be more about the parent's mentality.

With same sex couples, I am guessing that SOCIETY may question two men raising a girl before they question two women raising either a boy or a girl. So maybe it has something to do with that, with men who may not get approval to adopt a girl if others raise issues and push them to adopt a boy instead, given the social environment we live in. Could that be a factor?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 17, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




No, there isn't a factor. Gays adopt children of both genders.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Your quick to answer, yet where are you drawing your answers from ? Has there been studies done on such questions, and the answers given in light of such studies or stats maybe looked at ? What are the percentages in this one wonders ?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.
> 
> Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.



Don't be grumpy.  I'm not the one who made law enshrining a teen sex predator the icon of my social movement.  I'm not the one who pushed kids in school to emulate him.  I'm not the one who got a postage stamp of the creep made with a rainbow "USA" in the corner.

You'd do well to denounce Harvey Milk and quick.  Marriage puts people in the top tier for adoption qualifications.  Emulating a child predator can be problematic if gays want that privilege.  Might want to adjust your legal strategy accordingly.  It's never too late to come out as a group and denounce Harvey Milk.  Or, stand by him and be judge accordingly.  Your choice.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 18, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...




I'm quick to answer because gays are not prevented from adopting children of either genders. This is an indisputable fact. What question do you want answered?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 18, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.
> ...




Oh now he's a teen predator and not a child predator as you asserted before? Is that because he's was just following the Duck Dynasty model of getting them at 16? Do you give Phil a pass for what you disparage the late Milk for?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 18, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Oh now he's a teen predator and not a child predator as you asserted before? Is that because he's was just following the Duck Dynasty model of getting them at 16? Do you give Phil a pass for what you disparage the late Milk for?



You mean Duck Dynasty Phil, right?  I don't watch that show.  And I don't measure child-protection by TV shows.  I measure it more by a cult's leader.  Christians haven't cannonized Phil Robertson as a saint.  LGBTers HAVE as a group canonized Harvey Milk as a saint.  They've done so in law.  They've done so on a US Postage stamp, statues, schools and various other public concretions.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 18, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Oh now he's a teen predator and not a child predator as you asserted before? Is that because he's was just following the Duck Dynasty model of getting them at 16? Do you give Phil a pass for what you disparage the late Milk for?
> ...



Only Catholics play the canonizing game. 

Funny, I hear and see a lot more about Robertson than I do Harvey Milk...and I live in the bay area. 

Regardless of how you view Milk's personal life, he was a great civil rights leader struck down before his time.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 18, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No, I assure you, gays have canonized Harvey Milk.  You don't hear a lot about Harvey Milk in the Bay Area because if parents there started finding out the facts about "those nice lovable gay people", even in your town, their instincts to protect their children would kick in.

Hollywood [West Hollywood] controls the silver screen, so they're not going to let out their dirty little secret before they ramrod gay marriage in every state and elevate themselves to a nice legal position to adopt orphaned kids..

But I have a feeling that not hearing about Harvey Milk is going to change as the Harvey Milk v Utah case makes its way to the US Supreme Court..


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 18, 2014)

You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 18, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?


Wow, just wow.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 18, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?
> ...



I know, right?  It would be like the youth sporting organizations commissioning the postal service to make a Jerry Sandusky stamp and then accuse anyone in shock from that of being a 'bigot/hater/etc.".


----------



## Barb (Jan 18, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.
> ...



Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk. He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more innocent time. 

Phil Robertson (today!) wants them at fifteen, and has been defended on _religious grounds_.

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/12/2...hen-theyre-15-and-16-year-old/comment-page-2/


----------



## Flopper (Jan 18, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?


He joints a long list of gays on US stamps such as  Josephine Baker, James Baldwin, Samuel Barber, Elizabeth Bishop, Isadora Duncan, Langston Hughes, Frida Kahlo, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Cole Porter, Gertrude Ma Rainey, Bessie Smith, Rosetta Tharpe, Andy Warhol, Walt Whitman, and Tennessee Williams.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 18, 2014)

Barb said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Wasn't the Milk guy posing as the young fellers father or something to that affect ?  Makes a huge difference if the guy was perpetrating in that way right ? Phil may believe what he believes about marrying between two young people at that age or at those ages (old time beliefs), but it is proven now I think that it doesn't work to well these days to get married that young. Things have changed alot since the days of the Farmers daughter being married off young to the Farmers son, and it also shows how far the young people have fallen in their ability to cope in such a way these days. Marriage is more difficult these days as opposed to what it was back then, and the times in which people live dictate different outcomes for many things, but it still all depends on the two people who want to make a go of it at a younger age. 

Personally I think 15 or 16 is to young, because they have to know what is involved in their surroundings and the unstable settings that today brings with it, and they know that young peoples minds aren't as developed as they were back then (had to grow up faster back then). However, Phil may think that in their enviroment in which they live, such an enviroment can still marry off the young without being to much of a problem for them who decide to do such a thing. Remember these people live totally different than what other people live in America do, just like the Amish and others do also or just as well. Phil and the gang are not as far out there as some other groups are, but they are highly popular on that show, and that worries those who hate everything they stand for on that show.  That is why they tried to set them up by way of the old timer and his old timey views.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 18, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Wasn't the Milk guy posing as the young fellers father or something to that affect ?  Makes a huge difference if the guy was perpetrating in that way right ? Phil may believe what he believes about marrying between two young people at that age or at those ages (old time beliefs), but it is proven now I think that it doesn't work to well these days to get married that young. Things have changed alot since the days of the Farmers daughter being married off young to the Farmers son, and it also shows how far the young people have fallen in their ability to cope in such a way these days. Marriage is more difficult these days as opposed to what it was back then, and the times in which people live dictate different outcomes for many things, but it still all depends on the two people who want to make a go of it at a younger age.
> 
> Personally I think 15 or 16 is to young, because they have to know what is involved in their surroundings and the unstable settings that today brings with it, and they know that young peoples minds aren't as developed as they were back then (had to grow up faster back then). However, Phil may think that in their enviroment in which they live, such an enviroment can still marry off the young without being to much of a problem for them who decide to do such a thing. Remember these people live totally different than what other people live in America do, just like the Amish and others do also or just as well. Phil and the gang are not as far out there as some other groups are, but they are highly popular on that show, and that worries those who hate everything they stand for on that show.  That is why they tried to set them up by way of the old timer and his old timey views.



Well beagle, the main difference between what LGBT hero Harvey Milk did with his sex partners and what a 15 or 16 year old does with theirs is a little word called "consent".  If two teenagers fall in love and get their parents consent to marry, that's one thing.  What Harvey Milk did was to openly target homeless teen boys on drugs to sodomize one after the other, as Milk himself aged into his 40s, the age of his victims stayed the same.  A committed lifelong marriage between two consenting teens with their parents' permission and blessings is a little different than a temporary buggering session on a mentally unstable, confused minor, addled by drug addiction, by someone twice his age, who entices the boy in under the promise of a guardianship while he sodomizes him.

A minor homeless teen with a drug addiction is legally incapable of consent.  Milk used these boys like kleenex and he targeted them for their vulnerability to his nefarious plans for them.  The one minor he officated as "father" to, was so messed up in his head and on drugs that he was suicidal.  As you know, he committed suicide on Milk's birthday.  Another one Milk used in the same way also committed suicide if memory serves.  Been awhile since I've read Milk's biography.  Maybe you could get a copy of the book and let me know?  Seems someone told me the number of teen sex victims of Milk's that killed themselves was 3, but I can't recite that from memory.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 18, 2014)

Flopper said:


> He joints a long list of gays on US stamps such as  Josephine Baker, James Baldwin, Samuel Barber, Elizabeth Bishop, Isadora Duncan, Langston Hughes, Frida Kahlo, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Cole Porter, Gertrude &#8220;Ma&#8221; Rainey, Bessie Smith, Rosetta Tharpe, Andy Warhol, Walt Whitman, and Tennessee Williams.



And yet none of those people are famous for their sexual preferences.  Harvey Milk is another story.  It is that he was openly gay and held a public office.  If you accept that the definition of "gay" is buggering teen boys who were homeless with minds addled on drugs; and thereby legally incapable of consent.

You see none of those names elevated to the status of Harvey Milk's.  He is THE GAY who represents the subculture.  As a matter of law in California, children are required to celebrate him and his sexuality as such.  He is enshrined by law no less, in that state as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".  Other states have similar forced-celebrations in public schools of Milk's sexual accomplishments, even if they're not yet a law there.  Then there's the postage stamp that's like a cherry on top of the lurker-cult sundae...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 18, 2014)

Some heteroes (who are overwhelmingly in the majority of those who abuse children) want to ban homos from marriage because they might abuse children?  That's their argument.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 19, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?



Are you aware that they put a slave owner on U.S. Currency?


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 19, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?
> ...


Two wrongs don't make not one right... Many mistakes in this nation, but at least there is hope that the nation can correct those mistakes. They have in the past, so we shall see what goes on in the future.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Some heteroes (who are overwhelmingly in the majority of those who abuse children) want to ban homos from marriage because they might abuse children?  That's their argument.


Why do you ignore and not face the core of Silhouette's argument on the subject, and why don't you try and address it more rationally, because she has got some great points in her argument (IMHO).

Yes there is abuse against children by hetero couples or people who are hetero-sexual of course, but does that suggest that there can't be a problem with another group or with any other groups as well ?

When people form groups, then they usually expose themselves more to the masses who see them as a formed group who has a culture or a cause in which they live by or go by in the group that is formed around such causes or cultures.   They are also exposed more as to their culture that exist within the group, be it of this, and/or of that activity which goes on within a group. Now there are some in groups who don't want to be represented by the more radical elements within the group once they get in and see what it is all about, and they find that they cannot control those elements in which therefore make the whole group look bad, so what do they do ?  Some stay in and get branded along with the others who are in the group, and for whom are controlling it as a group or some get out of the group if it seems to radical for them to stay in the group any longer. The main reason for forming groups is for elevating it's power and persuasion usually, so it all depends on the group as is formed, and to what their goals and intent are as a group in which allows them success or either failure as a group in which has formed itself together.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 19, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Are you aware that they put a slave owner on U.S. Currency?



Yes, and I'm also aware that his peers did not emulate him as "best slave owner" or "best slave banger" and make an icon out of him for his slave-owning or his slave-banging behaviors..

The important part is not Harvey Milk the man, it's Harvey Milk, what the man DID.  And not just what he did, but that *what he did was iconized*.  Let me repeat that in case it didn't sink in.  *Harvey Milk's sexual behaviors were iconized, and indeed are defended to this day by LGBT people "across the nation and the world".*

What children in California schools are mandated by law to celebrate each year on or around May 22nd, is that Harvey Milk was open about his queer sexuality and held a public office as such.  Any child can, if he or she wants to, check out Milk's biography, say, to do a special report on what he is celebrated for.  Milk's sexuality, that child will find upon reading his biography, was picking up orphaned teens on drugs off the streets, buggering them one after another as he then discarded them.  Two or three of them went on to commit suicide.  Any who were drug addicts and homeless were mentally unstable, and therefore legally in capable of consent whether or not they all were minors like the one who Milk officiated as "father" to [while he was sodomizing him], who later killed himself on Milk's birthday..

If Thomas Jefferson was celebrated for his slave owning, a child might on such commemorative day, check out a book that described how Jefferson beat his slaves or starved them, or even cared well for them for all I know.  The slavery part though is never a savory aspect is it?  So why iconize it?  

Why iconize a man who committed felony sex crimes on vulnerable teens?  It would be quite a different thing if Milk was known for inventing say a new type of green energy or some new gadget.  But alas, no.  All Milk did of note was to hold a public office while being open about his queer sexual fetish, and not getting sent to prison for it.  That's it.  That's what he is celebrated for by LGBTers.

Get the difference?  Thomas Jefferson is celebrated not for his sins, but for his noble pursuits.  Harvey Milk is celebrated for his sexual atrocities against orphaned teens on drugs.  It says quite a lot about those who both celebrate and defend his "legacy" to this day..

[as I note Seawytch has just done again]


----------



## Barb (Jan 19, 2014)

Barb said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 20, 2014)

Barb said:


> Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.


Oh..lol...no.  I just forgot about this thread until I checked it just now.

There are no warnings against free speech and discussing Harvey Milk's "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 of his biography].  Nor is free speech banned when discussing how he sodomized the homeless orphan teen/minor Jack McKinley while officiating as his "father figure".  Free speech is also allowed to discuss that that boy grew up to kill himself on Milk's birthday.  

Also, free speech is allowed to discuss any other part of Milk's biography.  Or will you be burning books next?  I assume people can check out his biography in libraries still?  It's for sale online, last time I checked.

Free speech also covers discussing people who have elevated Milk to LGBT icon status and who have made a law in California [petri dish for what's to come in your state] requiring kids to celebrate that he was open about his sexuality and held a public office while doing so [without getting prosecuted for it].

Free speech covers all that.  It's also allowed to discuss how when a person gets married, they elevate to the top-tier of qualifying to adopt orphans.  And also is allowed drawing the conclusion that a person who belongs to a social cult that elevates a sexual predator of orphaned troubled teens, and who apologizes for him and defends his behavior ought not be allowed within a country mile of an adoptable orphan.

Just as you would agree that if a straight cult sprang up around emulating Jerry Sandusky's sexuality, those people should be kept away from adopting kids.  Pretty simple stuff.  You like equality, right?  Free speech?  1st Amendment rights to practice religion and all that good stuff, yes?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 20, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.
> ...


Exactly what does Harvey Milk, a gay who died 35 years ago have to do with the Supreme Court decision?  So because Harvey Milk allegedly sodomize a teen 40 or 50 years ago, gays should not be allowed to Marry and adopt children today because they just might do what Harvey Milk was accused of doing.  Using your logic we have to stop heterosexuals from adopting because some heterosexuals have sodomized children.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 20, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Exactly what does Harvey Milk, a gay who died 35 years ago have to do with the Supreme Court decision?  So because Harvey Milk allegedly sodomize a teen 40 or 50 years ago, gays should not be allowed to Marry and adopt children today because they just might do what Harvey Milk was accused of doing.  Using your logic we have to stop heterosexuals from adopting because some heterosexuals have sodomized children.



Well, in California, "across the nation and the world", Harvey Milk is enshrined as a matter of law as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement".  After trying to force gay marriage on that state against their will, gay activists there made a law forcing children in public schools to CELEBRATE Harvey Milk's "achievements" [buggering orphaned teens openly, while in office, without getting prosecuted].  

Follow the logic here.  If the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme, Milk's sodomizing a minor and many other orphaned teens also, one after the other, we have to see that LGBTs are Ok with that.  Which presents a problem if they are trying to access orphans through marriage.  Any reasonable person concerned with the welfare of children can see that a man's sexual appetites as such, embodied within an entire social movement, shouldn't be within a country mile of orphaned kids, or having access to being their custodian.

Were you aware that Milk officiated as the "father figure" of that minor boy he was sodomizing?  That boy killed himself on Milk's birthday after being discarded by Milk for fresh meat.  

That's hardly a sexual-legacy to wrap your movement around.  But hey, honesty is the best policy right?  At least in the future we can't say, "hey, why didn't they warn us?".  

You've seen it here even.  Even you are doing it.  When reminded of his crimes against vulnerable orphaned teens on drugs, one after the other, instead of denouncing him gays and their apologists line up to _defend_ the indefensible..poo poo it...minimalize it..  You don't minimalize sex crimes against vulnerable people like homeless teens on drugs and with mental problems.  Ever.

I'll leave you with that quote again from Milk's biography:

"_Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems_".  [page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk.   "Waifs".  _Plural_.

Now it would be a completely different thing if upon being appraised or reminded of Milk's sex crimes against those incapable of consent, gays lined up to denounce him and cast him off.  But that's not what happens, is it?  And therein lies the smoking gun...


----------



## Flopper (Jan 20, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what does Harvey Milk, a gay who died 35 years ago have to do with the Supreme Court decision?  So because Harvey Milk allegedly sodomize a teen 40 or 50 years ago, gays should not be allowed to Marry and adopt children today because they just might do what Harvey Milk was accused of doing.  Using your logic we have to stop heterosexuals from adopting because some heterosexuals have sodomized children.
> ...


You say, "if the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme."  Most gay and lesbians today weren't even alive when Harvey Milk committed the crimes you accuse him.  Was he convicted of these crimes? No.  Was he arrested? No. As evidence you quote from a biography.  All you really have is anti-gay marriage pundits trying to link a long dead gay politician with gay marriage today.

Jerry Sandusky was a married family man who unlike Harvey Milk, was actually arrested and convicted of sodomized underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys. Using your logic, we should prevent families from adopting children because they might follow in Jerry Sandusky's steps.

There is no more evidence that homosexual parents would sexual abuse their children than heterosexual parents.


----------



## Barb (Jan 21, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.
> ...



you forgot something



> Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk.
> 
> He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more innocent time.
> 
> ...



Speech has consequences. You say what you will in the hopes that your lies and gossip will become accepted as fact and concern for the children. Others will rightly point and laugh, or register their disgust, as is within their same right to free speech.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 21, 2014)

Are ya'll still feeding the Gay Lobby Trolls in here?

Hasn't this damned thing burned itself out yet?


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 21, 2014)

Barb said:


> You forgot something....Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk.
> 
> He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more *innocent time*.


A little word is missing here, and that word is "consent", now was there any at all to even speak of, and could one say that drugs being in the system would have imparied the proper decision making just a bit anyways ? 

Innocent time eh ? Harvey Milks biography speaks more of an evil man than one who is innocent from a more innocent time wouldn't you say ?



Barb said:


> *Phil Robertson (today!) wants them at fifteen, and has been defended on religious grounds.*


*

Why are you so disingenuious in your words spoken ? Phil does not want a 15 year old and you know it, (he was talking about young people marrying each other at that age (I disagree with that idealism myself for todays generation), but he draws this from the time when he had married once in the same at a very young age), but you try and smartly word your words like this in order to suggest to the ingnorant such a thing as you try and attack with around here. Shame on you! 

Phil figures that his marriage was such a success, in that if others were to find what he had found, then maybe they could enjoy the successes he enjoyed in life with a long and prosperous marriage to the same lovely lady as well.



Barb said:



			Speech has consequences. You say what you will in the hopes that your lies and gossip will become accepted as fact and concern for the children. Others will rightly point and laugh, or register their disgust, as is within their same right to free speech.
		
Click to expand...


Speech has consequences eh ? Not according to some in here, but that only applies through cherry picking doesn't it ?*


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 21, 2014)

Flopper said:


> You say, "if the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme."  Most gay and lesbians today weren't even alive when Harvey Milk committed the crimes you accuse him.  Was he convicted of these crimes? No.  Was he arrested? No. As evidence you quote from a biography.  All you really have is anti-gay marriage pundits trying to link a long dead gay politician with gay marriage today.
> 
> Jerry Sandusky was a married family man who unlike Harvey Milk, was actually arrested and convicted of sodomized underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys. Using your logic, we should prevent families from adopting children because they might follow in Jerry Sandusky's steps.
> 
> There is no more evidence that homosexual parents would sexual abuse their children than heterosexual parents.



I never "accused" Milk of crimes.  I'm merely reciting from his biography, written by his friend Randy Shilts of the actual crimes he committed.  Whether or not he was prosecuted doesn't mean they weren't crimes.  

Sodomizing an orphaned minor teen boy on drugs, or many of them, while officiating as that boy's "father figure" is crime on many levels.  That boy, Jack McKinley was mentally unstable as well and often was suicidal.  He finally killed himself on Milk's birthday.  All that are felonies for:

1. Sodomizing a minor.

2. Sodomizing a minor and being over 15 years older than he.

3. Sodomizing someone under the influence of drugs.

4. Sodomizing a mentally unstable person incapable of consent.

The fact that he escaped prosecution is what gays celebrate.  He was open about doing 1-4 and got away with it.  Does that "getting away with it and later being iconized for it by a social movement" diminish any of those felonies?  No, felonies are felonies, prosecuted or not.

If you have a beef with someone about Harvey Milk's felonies being discussed, take it up with the author of The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk.  Only you can't, because he died of AIDS long ago.

So, all we are left with is Milk's legacy as depicted by his friend, not by me.  And his friend's biography of him tells us of the various felonies that, if anyone committed them today and was open about it, would be in prison.

So then this sex-criminal, LGBTers have chosen as their "civil rights icon".  Don't play dumb.  We have seen this again and again in the media, as a matter of law and as a matter of legal requirement in California of children there and across other states being forced in schools to celebrate him: speaking of people too young to have remembered him when he actually was alive.  They're being reminded of him and forced to celebrate his sexuality in elementary schools and higher schools as iconic of the LGBT movement.

Harvey Milk's LGBT notariety and fame derive directly from his open sexual behavior and that he brazenly held a public office while committing these crimes; and that he didn't get prosecuted for it.  That's the part LGBTers are requiring kids to celebrate: his open sexuality with at least one minor orphan on drugs, but many more vulnerable teens as the book documents of his life; and that he didn't get prosecuted for it.  The message to kids "see, society approves of this.  It's OK now".

And that's so sick and wrong and perverse and a twisted mind-fcuk to do to kids that I don't even know where to start.  But that won't prevent me from talking about it.

So, if you or any other gay person doesn't want Harvey Milk to "represent", then just say so.  But alas, no, once again, ad nauseum, you are here to defend him and his sexual legacy.  That is one and the same as defending a legacy of sex abuse crimes against society's most vulnerable people: orphaned kids.

Pick a new guy to represent or get used to the idea of discussing Harvey Milk's sex crimes against the vulnerable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 21, 2014)

JakeStarkey: "Some heteroes (who are overwhelmingly in the majority of those who abuse children) want to ban homos from marriage because they might abuse children? That's their argument."

Beagle9: "Why do you ignore and not face the core of Silhouette's argument on the subject, and why don't you try and address it more rationally, because she has got some great points in her argument (IMHO)."

Beagle, the core of her argument is an irrational hatred of those who are different.

My argument is rational because it points out the hypocrisy of singling out homosexual predators and ignoring the far greater number of heterosexual abusers of children.

If she is saying the one should not marry because they abuse children, then it is even more so for the far larger group that abuses children in far greater numbers.

My logic is impeccably correct.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 21, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey: "Some heteroes (who are overwhelmingly in the majority of those who abuse children) want to ban homos from marriage because they might abuse children? That's their argument."
> 
> Beagle9: "Why do you ignore and not face the core of Silhouette's argument on the subject, and why don't you try and address it more rationally, because she has got some great points in her argument (IMHO)."
> 
> ...



Besides Warren Jeffs, I can't think of any hetero outfit that has formed a cult around a child rapist, except of course the gay cult that woships child-rapist Harvey Milk.  Even with Jeff's cult followers, they name as his "greatness" other qualities they revere him for and are rather hush hush about his crimes against children.  Not so with the LGBT community.  What they celebrate in their venerated cult leader is his sexual behavior.  That's the core of his accomplishments: that he got away with what he did to orphaned teens, vulnerable, incapable of consent, and was not lambasted, arrested or prosecuted for it.  THAT was his victorious claim to fame: being open about it and brazenly getting away with it.  Much like brazenly taking away a state's rights to set parameters for people who may marry, by judicial fiat.

When you elevate a child rapist to your "civil rights hero" that's when the trouble begins.  When you mandate as a matter of law that children celebrate a child-rapist's sexuality in schools on a commemorative day, that's when you've stepped over the line.  When you commemorate a national postage stamp honoring his sexual legacy, you are now beyond the pale.  If you speak of in defense of your icon or refuse to denounce him from your lowly level in the cult's ranks, you are part of the problem of child sex abuse.  Plain and simple.

Criticism of this cult worship of this man's sexual appetite for orphaned teen boys should be expected when discussions of marriage and gaining access to one of its perks is on the table.

One of the perks of marriage is..*drum roll* .._top-tier access to adopt orphaned kids_...


----------



## Flopper (Jan 21, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > You say, "if the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme."  Most gay and lesbians today weren't even alive when Harvey Milk committed the crimes you accuse him.  Was he convicted of these crimes? No.  Was he arrested? No. As evidence you quote from a biography.  All you really have is anti-gay marriage pundits trying to link a long dead gay politician with gay marriage today.
> ...


With all that said, you still have not shown that Harvey Milk's supposed crime 40 years ago as reported by a biographer has any bearing on whether gays should be allowed to marry and adopt children today.

Your argument is so full holes it's not worth considering.   It's based on guilt by association with a  crime that has never been proven.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 21, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Because they are losing their arguments. Milk is a distraction from failed arguments.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 21, 2014)

Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).

These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule that underline the overwhelmingly decent heterosexual and homosexual marriages that nurture and strengthen the development of children.

Sil has made the case for universal marriage.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 21, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).
> 
> These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule that underline the overwhelmingly decent heterosexual and homosexual marriages that nurture and strengthen the development of children.
> 
> Sil has made the case for universal marriage.



No, actually, they aren't the rule.  What is the rule is homosexuals lining up en masse to defend the Harvey Milk name and legacy.  What is the exception to that rule is the homosexual who denounces him.

And you know that.

Since we are talking about a socio-sexual cult, essentially, one needs to look at the cult's leadership to discover what the cult's value system revolves around.  Sure, there may be one or two individuals of a cult who are resistant to conformity.  History teaches us though that gays and lesbians line up lockstep to defend and promote the iconized-sexuality of Harvey Milk' even [and this is most important here] when they've most recently been reminded about the _objective_ reality around what he did to vulnerable orphaned teen boys on drugs.

Sorry Jake.  You got it exactly backwards...  The exception to the LGBT rule is the one who denounces Harvey Milk's "sexual freedom".  Would you like me to cite the law in CA requiring kids to celebrate Milk's open sexuality while holding a public office?  I think you know where that link is though.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 21, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).
> ...



You are arguing to the mirror, Sil.  You are the exception that proves the rule.

American marriage is good and getting better state by state.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 21, 2014)

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).
> ...



Jake, I am not an exception to the rule.  See my signature.  The rule of law means that if you expect a danger or potential danger coming at children, you are required by law to report that danger.

And so here I am: pointing out that as a group, LGBTers promote a sexual predator of homeless teen boys on drugs as their cult leader.  It's unfortunate they chose him.  But maybe not in the end.  As I said before, honesty is the best policy.  You at least cannot fault the LGBT cult for being dishonest about what they really and truly stand up for and pressure their followers to stand up for, each and every one.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 21, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Whose making the associations here ? Is it just her or is it also the LGBT community, in which has created the linking to this guy, otherwise by holding this guy up as one of their icons as she is trying to relay to us in her post ?


----------



## Barb (Jan 22, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot something....Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk.
> ...


*




A little word is missing here, and that word is "consent", now was there any at all to even speak of, and could one say that drugs being in the system would have imparied the proper decision making just a bit anyways ? 

Click to expand...


Was there? Were there drugs in the system when they had sex? Was Harvey his first partner?

SO many questions his accusers DON'T have answers to, SO many unofficial charges from those who weren't there, and are not officials, all of which which make charges of "child rape" ludicrous. Do you get it yet? 

And I don't care if the current poster boy for religious liberty is looking for a 15 year old for himself or advocating the idea (paraphrased: gettin em young, before they learn to steal)  to others, he's advocating  getting girls at 15, so they can be trained up the way their husbands will want them.*


----------



## Flopper (Jan 22, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Hopefully, the anti-gay forces will use this argument in court.
Gays should not be allowed to marry because they may adopt children and sodomize them.  Why?  Because Harvey Milk was accused of sodomizing a teen 40 years ago and some gays see him as an icon.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 22, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Whose making the associations here ? Is it just her or is it also the LGBT community, in which has created the linking to this guy, otherwise by holding this guy up as one of their icons as she is trying to relay to us in her post ?


Exactly.  The association of Harvey Milk's sexual behavior while holding office was made by LGBTs as a matter of law no less.  I am merely the one noticing that objective fact and pointing it out.

Likewise, the laws regarding reporting potential harm to children were not made by me; but I am required by those laws to speak out and notify authorities when I see potential danger looming over kids; most particularly adoptable orphans.  In this case that danger would be a social cult [LGBT] identifying with and diefying the sexuality of their messiah, Harvey Milk, a man who preyed sexually on orphaned teens as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world" [as it appears verbatum in law in California]  .  LGBTs wanting marriage means they are trying to access an institution which has as one of its perks, elevation to top-tier qualifiers to adopt orphaned kids.

There is a conflict of interest there.  I did not create the conflict.  I am merely here noticing it and pointing it out; as I'm required to do by law.


----------



## Barb (Jan 22, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 22, 2014)

Barb said:


> And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.



A broken law that endangered or harmed children is a broken law that endangered or harmed children.  The federal and state statutes that require protection of children as a top priority of law give unusual leeway in merely suspecting a danger to children as a mandate to report it: instead of having proof as is the usual case.

As I said before: it is particularly disturbing that time and again you see gays defending and promoting Harvey Milk by sing-songing that he wasn't prosecuted for the crimes he openly admitted to doing to those boys.  Remember, he was ensconced in San Franfreakshow that is spreading its cancerous tendrils all across that poor state and "across the nation and the world".  Just because the Bay Area thinks a man shouldn't be prosecuted for his crimes, doesn't mean the rest of the country agrees.

It would be like what happened with Jerry Sandusky.  He was allowed continued access to those teen boys because even after someone saw him sodomizing a boy in the showers, they failed to report: which is a prosecutable offense.  So as a result, that Sandusky phenomenon was allowed to flourish under wraps as more and more boys became emotionally damaged by his "unprosectued crimes" ...until someone FINALLY blew the whistle on him.

We just don't want to wait that long with the gay marriage/access-via-marriage-to-adopt-orphans situation.  The law requires to err on the side of child protection.


----------



## Barb (Jan 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.
> ...



Milk's youngest partner, PARTNER, SINGULAR, rather than plural, was SIXTEEN.

I can see from years back of postings of yours in multiple forums that this whole thing is a major "thing" for you, For the life of me, "why" is a question is a matter for the "bang head here" poster.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 22, 2014)

Barb said:


> I can see from years back of postings of yours in multiple forums that this whole thing is a major "thing" for you, For the life of me, "why" is a question is a matter for the "bang head here" poster.



"Why" is not really a question.  The "why" is obvious.  With no argument as to why consenting *adults* should be treated differently under the law based on orientation (even though technically the deciding factors are gender) some attempt to employ the "Poison the Well" and "Broadbrush" fallacies to deflect the discussion.

The obvious purpose of bringing up Milk it to poison the discussion and pain all (or most) homosexuals with the same brush.  A pretty desperate and low validity tactic.

>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 22, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > I can see from years back of postings of yours in multiple forums that this whole thing is a major "thing" for you, For the life of me, "why" is a question is a matter for the "bang head here" poster.
> ...




Desperate is a very apt description. Dying gasps...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> > JakeStarkey said:
> >
> >
> > > Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).
> ...



I wrote, "*These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule"* referring to Milk and Jeffs.

You are the one being dishonest trying to exclude heterosexuals who abuse children in far greater numbers than homosexuals.  It simply will not work.  You have fail.  You will always have fail.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 22, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious  progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.



Marriage is the joining of one male and one female.  PERIOD.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 22, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious  progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.
> ...




Not according to the laws in close to a score of states...and growing rapidly. 

Your religion may have a different view but it is of no relevance to the topic.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > > No, actually, they aren't the rule.  What is the rule is homosexuals lining up en masse to defend the Harvey Milk name and legacy.  What is the exception to that rule is the homosexual who denounces him.
> ...



Heterosexuals exist by orders of magnitude beyond homosexuals.  It follows that 'more examples' of every conceivable behavior would be greater in the significantly larger segment of the population.

What you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins.

Reason requires that this is due to homosexuality being by definition, a deviation from the biological standard, established by the natural design of the species.  Therefore, the homosexual is axiomatically prone to sexual abnormalities. 

It follows that Homosexual men, would be prone to higher desires for younger males, just as hetero sexuals are prone toward higher desires for younger females. 

The homosexual however is accustomed to setting aside cultural mores and standards and pursuing sexual gratification, where nature and sound moral standards otherwise discourages such.

And in that is the basis for the argument that homosexuality should be discouraged, in a sound, viable culture.

Please just stand-by for the customary OUTRAGE and discontent by those who will surely come to inform us of the superior nature of the sexually abnormal, as they advocate for the normalization of sexual abnormality.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 22, 2014)

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"

Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.

But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"
> 
> Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.
> 
> But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.


You just keep dancing around that little cult issue, don't you.

Let's say there was a group of people who identified Jerry Sandusky as "representative of our socio-sexual group".  Let's say they call themselves the Groobies.  Let's say the Groobies wanted equal access to adoptable orphans as other people.  And, let's say the Groobies had a lot of money and political influence.  Should we elevate them to top-tier qualification to adopt kids?

The issue is that people who emulate and defend a child sex predator, even after just freshly reminded of his crimes, are not fit to raise up to the level of top-tier to adopt kids.

Pretty much common sense, wouldn't you say; to deny the "Groobies" access to kids?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"
> ...




Do you stay up nights making this shit up in your head? 

This "top-tier" one is new and interesting. A ridiculous Strawman, but oh so "fresh".


----------



## Flopper (Jan 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.
> ...


I seriously doubt that a reported but unproven act of a gay man 40 years ago endangers any children today.  However, using your line of reasoning, it might be appropriate to ban Christian marriages to protect the children since there have been a number of arrests and convictions of Christians leaders who have not just been accused but arrested and convicted of molesting, sodomizing, and raping children.

Christians, Be Cautious! 50 Disgraced Christian Leaders


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 22, 2014)

Flopper said:


> I seriously doubt that a reported but unproven act of a gay man 40 years ago endangers any children today.  However, using your line of reasoning, it might be appropriate to ban Christian marriages to protect the children since there have been a number of arrests and convictions of Christians leaders who have not just been accused but arrested and convicted of molesting, sodomizing, and raping children.



The best proof we have of Harvey Milk sodomizing the 16 year old minor _orphan _street "waif" "with substance abuse problems" and officiating as his father figure is Milk's good friend and gay journalist's biography of him.  That and common knowledge at the time.  Perhaps we should interview Dianne Feinstein since she knew Milk quite well?

This elevation of Harvey Milk to iconic status, the messiah essentially of the LGBT cult, didn't happen 40 years ago.  The law enshrining him as such was passed only a few years ago and his commemorative stamp, complete wiht rainbow colored "USA" at the top was I believe just issued this month.

As to Seawytch's rant.  Here is the low down on adoption and marriage.  How it elevates one to top preference in adopting...*drum roll* _orphaned kids_..



> Most adoption agencies consider specific qualifications in prospective parents. They consider age and income. And when it comes to marital status, they usually prefer married couples.
> 
> Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said agencies do that for good reason.
> 
> ...



Occasionally, once in awhile I get my facts crosswired.  But it isn't often.  And in this case particulary it is spot on.

Marriage elevates a person in most adoption agencies to top-tier status to adopt.  There's the access for the Harvey Milkers to get at orphans.

And what do the faithful of the LGBT cult do when you confront them with the facts of Harvey Milk's celebrated sexual legacy?  They defend him, make excuses for him.  They say "it was 40 years ago, why worry?" or "the age of consent should be lowered".

And that, objectively, presents a problem with gay marriage.  And as you know by now if you've been following my posts or my signature, if you suspect children may come to harm you must report that suspicion.  You do not need proof in this rare type of prosecution.  You only need to suspect it and err on the side of protecting children.

Now, go ahead and argue to SCOTUS that you should err instead on the side of Harvey Milkers getting what they want instead of children being protected.  I dare you, no, I double-dare you to argue that...lol..

And, good luck!


----------



## Barb (Jan 23, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



particularly egregious: 



> Milk sodomized a minor orphaned teen, among many others like him, while officiating as his father.



Where to start? to address the first lie: the kid was of age , and the second: even HE was the youngest, and the third: right there in the courtroom?  

About that, anyway - Milk did that to help Jack in a situation where he needed an older family member and couldn't ask anyone at  home because his father beat him - the reason he ran away.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 23, 2014)

What&#8217;s particularly egregious is Silhouette's ignorance as to the utter irrelevance of this subject to the issue at hand, where a single, anecdotal, unsubstantiated accusation concerning a particular individual is in no way representative of the gay community as a whole, and consequently carries no legal weight whatsoever.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 23, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



That's true, but the laws in that score of states, are based upon subjective nonsense.  We know this because the laws of nature say that marriage is one male and one female, joining together.

Your rationalizing that because its legal, its right.  Historically that's been a HUGE mistake.  

Ya may want to turn to one of your black friends and ask him about that.  I expect that he (or she) may have some information you'll want to hear, within the scope of that subject.

If ya don't have any black friends, maybe you have a Jewish friend.  They've had some problems with that system of reasoning, from time to time, over the last 5 thousand years.

My friend isn't here at the moment, but he was born after his mother, who was a highly motivated, upwardly mobile executive, decided that she'd abort one of her babies, spent a ridiculous amount of money getting it done. She felt that two babies was more than she could handle and that it would be bad for her image as a hard nosed executive.

It was all perfectly legal.  She's dead now, committed suicide from the guilt of having killed her child's twin.  Adding to the horror, she succumbed to it, the day after his 5th birthday.  Left a note begging him to forgive her.

He's a great guy, but I would wager that he'll suicide at some point.  It's all quite tragic really.  But perfectly legal.

People these days, particularly those caught up in pop culture, seem to have absolutely no sense of morality.  

Now I blame human nature.  We're a weak species, prone toward the endless search for the easier way.  Hey!  They've built an entire political system around that very idea.  So, whatta ya gonna do?  

Right?


Anywho.

Learn to reason soundly, friend, it'll help move the conversation along.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 23, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Ironic post is ironic. You posted nothing but your subjective opinion with no basis in fact and I'm the one that needs to learn to reason soundly? Seriously?

What does abortion have to do with marriage equality? 

All my black, Jewish, and even Muslim friends support marriage equality...like the rest of America.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously doubt that a reported but unproven act of a gay man 40 years ago endangers any children today.  However, using your line of reasoning, it might be appropriate to ban Christian marriages to protect the children since there have been a number of arrests and convictions of Christians leaders who have not just been accused but arrested and convicted of molesting, sodomizing, and raping children.
> ...


Harvey Milk is honored today not because he was accused of sodomizing a teen which you seem to believe but because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to public office.


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 23, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.
> ...



did you know that every single right protected by the COTUS was in fact VOTED ON? Making your claim that we shouldn't decide which rights should be protected by votes ridiculous.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 23, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...




Alabama (amongst other States) voted to ban interracial marriages, that vote was overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 23, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Alabama (amongst other States) voted to ban interracial marriages, that vote was overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
> 
> 
> >>>>


 
What does race have to do with LGBTQs or the cult of Harvey Milk wanting to marry?  Race has as much to do with polygamy as LGBTQs; which is to say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Plus, there's that terrible snag that the messiah of the church of LGBT was a pederast who buggered orphaned teens on drugs for his jollies.  He even officiated as "father figure" to at least one of those boys; who later committed suicide on Harvey Milk's birthday.  The faithful line up to defend him when reminded of his sexual legacy and child victims.  

Letting this church access orphans via marriage is a poor idea.  And as luck would have it, is against child endangerment laws and statutes.  Those statutes require people report just suspicions of potential harm, without the requirement of a legal conviction.  So here I am, reporting.  As required of me by law...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2014)

Sil continues hung up on the cult nonsense.

Her logic fails: if she wants homos to not marry because they might abuse children they adopt, then the same applies to heteroes.

There is way her logic can escape that fallacy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So you're saying that because something is declared legal, it is therefore morally sound?  

That by virtue of it having been declared law by some government edict, it serves justice?

Again folks, please take note of what relativism looks like.

These people are desperate to be 'normal'.  And they're prepared to do ANYTHING to get there, except reason objectively and discipline their behavior to activities that comport with the laws of nature.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



"These people"? 

Marriage equality IS moral. 

BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.

Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable


----------



## Geaux4it (Jan 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I don't care if 'these people' want to marry a chicken, however, if they want the benefits of such union, then I have to draw the line.

-Geaux


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 24, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



A chicken can't consent to a legal contract. 

You can draw all the lines you want to, but legally married gays do get the benefits no matter how you scribble.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jan 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Meh, that's fine. IMO, just adds to the list of enormous weights dragging down the human race

-Geaux


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yes Milk was a pedophile.  

So was the Father of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, Alfred Kinsey.

But unlike Milk, Kinsey molested THOUSANDS of Children, Infants and toddlers.  And he did so using FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS.  

As a Eugenicist, Kinsey studied human sexuality, declared it a discipline of "SCIENCE!", and once established as an authority in the field, his 'Institute', declared sexual-abnormality to be 'perfectly normal'.  

Kinsey-ites, have literally declared that 'some children may actually benefit from Adult/child sexual relations'.

The entire advocacy to normalize sexual-abnormality is a lie, from soup to nuts.  

But it rests in Socialism, which rests in Relativism, which rejects objectivity, which is essential to truth, trust and morality.  

So that serves reason.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That's because a Chicken lacks the means to reason at sufficiently elevated levels to understand the rights and correlating responsibilities inherent in a contract.

Neither can a child.

But the more interesting question is *"IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?*

If so, why so?

If not, why not?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




'Popularity determines truth!'

Another typical, but fatally flawed conclusion, brought to you by: The Cult of the Relativism.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"
> 
> Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.
> 
> But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.



Do we?

Huh.

So, the standard, that is Marriage, which provides for the joining of one man and one woman, for the purposes of procreation through a sound and viable group, wherein the progeny are sustained and nurtured through the complimenting traits of the respective genders, you feel that THIS institution should be banned, because there exist a percentage of that group which succumbs to sexual abnormality?

Meaning that you feel that the standards should be set to accommodate the lowest common denominator?  

Which of course would be the exact opposite of the purpose which the 'standard' concept serves.

Bass-ackwards and upside down: Relativism.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...




If pigs flew out of your ass you could fuck them. Seriously?!? That's what you come back with, an absurd "what if"?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




It does determine morality. Do you think interracial marriages are immoral? They used to be considered so.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"
> ...




Which state requires procreation as a qualifier for a civil marriage license?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Anyone else notice the deflection?  

The purpose being served is to draw the attention from the significance of the query being posed and to attack the individual bringing the question and, in a delightfully sweet irony, projecting sexual abnormality upon the opposition, in the desperate hope that the stigmatic projection will cow that opposition.

CLASSIC!

Sadly, for the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, this does not answer the question, which is:

"But the more interesting question is *"IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?*"


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Are you trying to establish that the RULE must state the principle which it serves?

Where else in law does this happen?

Do states require that all cars on the highway, be mechanically or electronically governed to not exceed the maximum limits the law allows?

Notice friends how 'reason' is "the problem", for the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality.  This is known as: 'shifting the goal'.

Marriage, defined by nature as the joining of one man and one women, serves the analogous purpose emulating the act of coitus, wherein the male and female join, becoming one body, within the scope and in keeping with, the viable, natural design of the human body, which represents the sexual standard, from which the sexual abnormality: Homosexuality, deviates.

This standard encourages sound families, to the extent that is possible through law, thus that which is viably practical.  

The best the opposition can muster, is the tried and true: "Nuh uh" defense, as they seek to lower yet another cultural standard, providing greater participation by the lowest common denominator, which has never resulted, anywhere, at any time, in higher performance.  With all such having ever produced is greater numbers of those producing lower results.

This is all very simple stuff.  How pathetic must a culture be, to have these simple principles being debated as if there is some viable alternative?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

The procreation argument is a red herring.

Dismissed.

Let's move on.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The procreation argument is a red herring.
> 
> Dismissed.
> 
> Let's move on.



It's not the argument, it is a premise within the argument.  Procreation serves as the PRIMARY FUNCTION of marriage.  

No one has EVER stated that procreation serves as its only purpose.  

The red herring is in the oppositional argument which seeks to revise the procreation point as the primary point of the opposition.

I mean, what you're in effect saying is that procreation is irrelevant to marriage.  Which in practical terms, in today's culture, that's probably accurate.  But the same ideology that is arguing to normalize sexual abnormality caused that, and the rancid examples of sub-standard humanity being produced as a result of it, should be all that any objective observer needs to know, to recognize that it is a decidedly low-standard and as such it is a VERY _BAD_ IDEA!

We're discussing the STANDARD of marriage and it's purpose in sustaining a sound, viable culture and the Ideological Left's determination to undermine or lower that standard, for the purposes of subverting the culture, as a collectivist means toward the acquisition of power.

I'm prepared to argue any element of the issue and will happily do so, but let me just state fo the record that my favorite aspect of this issue is the looming eradication of the homosexual community, in effect shoving homosexuals back into the closet, BY THOSE WHO THEY WILLFULLY PROVIDED POWER, almost instantly, at the point where they acquire sufficient power to not NEED YOU.

Historically, they've done this through the shifting of blame.  In a shell which bespeaks to the true nature of socialism, socialist policy fails.  Nature simply requires that it must.

Lacking any means for objectivity, the empowered Left MUST find a scapegoat, on which to blame their certain failure.

Once the political opposition has been quelled, the search for the goat turns social, and it is at that point, the homosexuals are up.  And it is NEVER pretty.  In a delicious irony, the more cruel examples of this are usually the homosexuals themselves, who have acquired some position which provides them power and, for obvious reasons.

But we can go into that whenever you're ready.  

There's plenty of time to post sound reason, then you guys fecklessly reject it, as only you can, repeat and rinse.  

Just let me know.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

FTR: this query remains standing: 

"*But the more interesting question is "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?*"

(They can't answer it, because in truth, the answer is: "YES".  Which discloses the truth of their position, which answers in finality, the all encompassing rationalization: "How does homosexuality harm you?"

Ya see folks, we're barreling directly toward the debate wherein "SCIENCE!" declares that 'children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults'.  

At that point, the basis for a legal argument is formed.  

So what YOU may feel is the Left taking a moral stance, that 'children are not capable of sexual consent because they lack sufficient means to understand the consequences, thus cannot make an informed decision'.  What you're missing is the teeny tiny little qualifier you will almost always see in the above statement, which are the words: "Legal" or "Legally".

Now here's where it gets ugly.

Ask yourself, what was the last thing you heard in the media regarding 'Sexual Education', in terms of what is being taught, at what age.

I can't speak for you, but the last 'report' I saw on the issue, spoke to a Father of a 13 year old girl, who snapped a picture of a posted syllabus  at her school, outlining one of the schools sex-ed classes.

It covered intercourse, anal and vaginal.

Oral Sex, Aural sex, sexting, multiple partners, Homosexual sex, and so on and so forth, with the listed 'curriculum' providing insight toward dozens of hot-sex topics, to 12 and 13 year old children.

Now I ask ya, could it be argued that this sort of information provides a basis to justify the notion that those with an understanding of the above criteria, would be 'better' able to reasonably consent to a sexual relationship with an adult?  means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?  Particularly where the advocacy for the normalization of sexual a normality, having provided the "SCIENCE!" which PROVES that children are well suited to consent to sex with an adult.

The answer to which is: Yes.  Yes it would.

So I ask again: " ... "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?"


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Everything I've read here in these posts neglects to address one thing: that LGBT is social movement, a cult by definition.  The faithful/indocrinated are not allowed to change back from cult values even if they know theirs is not a normal orientation and was gotten by being molested by a same-sex perp.  By the age of 18, the imprinted behavior will be essentially permanent: 


> The law, adopted last year, was the first of its kind and an unusual effort to regulate a form of talk therapy. It bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation of people under the age of 18.
> 
> Hailed by gay rights groups as a landmark, the law was based on the conclusions of mainstream professional associations that such efforts have never been proved to work and that the therapy can harm young patients.
> 
> ...



If anyone does defect from the cult, they are labelled "Anne Heche" which is synonymous with "heretic".  The cult has a messiah, Harvey Milk.  The things the cult values in their messiah is that he was brazenly open about his "queer" sexuality while holding a public office.  His sexuality involved picking up orphaned teens on drugs off the streets and sodomizing them one after the other as he aged into his 40s.  One of those teens, a legal minor, he officiated as the father figure to while sodomizing him.  That boy grew up and killed himself on Milk's birthday.  All hail the messiah.

If you bring up the Messiah, much like if you bring up Muhammed to a muslim, the faithful, even when reminded of the nuts and bolts of their messiah's "queer" sexuality with boys, they jump to defend him, one after the other.

And now this cult wants at orphans to adopt via marriage.  Once married, they cannot legally be discriminated against when they go to adopt vs other married couples.  

And that is your secular objection to gay marriages right there.  It elevates them to the top-tier of adopting parents were legally they no longer will be able to be denied access to orphans [see sexuality of their messiah].

The premise of what LGBT is, in many of your posts folks, is incorrect.  You are overlooking the obvious signs of a social cult.  But when you plug in the cult premise, all of it starts to make sense....how more and more people you see are suddenly "gay"?  Surely not all of them were in the closet?....how more and more boys ages 13-24 are coming down with HIV: a sudden spike in the same years the big rainbow media push has been going on..  More and more and more gays coming from a "born that way" population?  Yeah, I don't think so. 

Society is swept up in this cult and non-cult members are objecting.  That's what Utah is about.  Sure, you could argue mormonism is a cult too, but it's a cult that's been around longer than the church of LGBT.  So if you weigh the two cult's "rights" in Utah, it's going to just boil down to a majority vote.  And that already happened to define marriage the way it is there.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Everything I've read here in these posts neglects to address one thing: that LGBT is social movement, a cult by definition.  The faithful/indocrinated are not allowed to change back from cult values even if they know theirs is not a normal orientation and was gotten by being molested by a same-sex perp.  By the age of 18, the imprinted behavior will be essentially permanent:
> 
> 
> > The law, adopted last year, was the first of its kind and an unusual effort to regulate a form of talk therapy. It bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation of people under the age of 18.
> ...



Brilliant!

What you're describing is the subversive nature of socialism.

Never forget:  SOCIALISM KILLS!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette was worrying about some secret conspiracy within the Utah state defense team to undermine the state's appeal.

This should alleviate her fears and anyone else's about that.  Utah news, Salt Lake City LDS news | The Salt Lake Tribune News


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> What you're describing is the subversive nature of socialism.
> 
> Never forget:  SOCIALISM KILLS!



Yes, but you should also never forget that cultism isn't reserved to the left.  The right is rife with it as well.  You can always tell the hallmark of a cult when it diverges away from logic and common sense.

An example on the far right would be the extreme views on birth control and abortion.  Then those same people line up to say they are "christian" with "christian values".  And in the same breath without skipping a beat, they announce that there should be no or reduced programs to help out raising and providing for unwanted children as they grow to adulthood in low income houses.

You see.  That "ism" has taken a detour from logic and common sense.  If conservatives promoted no abortions, they should be the number one champion of free birth control.  That's logical.  If conservatives don't want more welfare or entitlement programs, they should support "Plan B" pills for those that birth control didn't work for, and are in the earliest stages of "clump of cells" pregnancy.

But they don't.  And that is illogical.  Their somatized and illogical brains cannot connect the dots between an unwanted child brought up on harrowing poverty and the costs in taxes of expensive prisons, mental insitution and crime of all sorts; and just a general moral decay.  If you grow up unwanted in a home that wishes you never were in every way it treats you, you will grow up to be a criminal.

Likewise, if the cult of LGBT wants to be married, and marriage offers as one of its perks, top-tier access to adoptable children, that cult shouldn't have nominated and sworn allegiance to a messiah [Harvey Milk] who sodomized a minor boy orphaned street "waif" on drugs, who he was officiating as a father figure to at the same time.  And many others like him through the years he held office and before. 

That's illogical.  It doesn't follow common sense.  The cult of LGBT cannot insist the general public pull the wool over its own eyes when it comes to orphan protection.  The LGBT cult has proven that it will sue relentlessly to get at what it wants.  Once "married", you will not be able to stop them from adopting orphans.  They will sue for "discrimination" and promote their rights over the rights of a child to be shielded from logically-predictive dangers to them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Nice try, Sil, but LGBT is not a cult.  Marriage is marriage, period.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nice try, Sil, but LGBT is not a cult.  Marriage is marriage, period.



Prove that LGBT is not a cult.  Prove that LGBT people are "born that way".  Show me why, for example, since all this cult-promotion in our culture, a sudden spike is seen in boys ages 13-24 coming down with HIV?  Show me how it is all of a sudden that you see so many many more people "coming out gay".  

Is everyone gay and just "waiting to come out of the closet"?  That might be true, given how a culture demands its inhabitants to behave.  What's at stake here is the unmaking of the cultural fabric.  It's a thing that happened in Ancient Greece and the more famous city of Sodom.  Nobody there had a chance.  They were all "born gay" because to buck that system was to be an outcast, persecuted, brought into line.  Lot was the only one who refused to be sucked into that culture.  And he was the only one to be spared its complete destruction.

Individual divergence is one thing.  And people should have compassion for gays who were imprinted that way, usually by molestation in childhood:



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men *and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of *depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...



But promoting these behaviors as a "new culture" or "new religion" [or cult, more properly] is destructive to the overall social fabric.  There used to be a topic called the "Greying of America" discussing the baby-boomers aging.  There needs to be a new topic called the "Gaying of America".  The first topic would be the CDC surveys showing sudden spikes in youth coming down with HIV.  Born that way?  Not....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

I don't have to prove something that does not exist.

But you do if that is your thesis; the affirmation is on you.

You know SCOTUS is going to rebuke your way of thinking when it rules.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nice try, Sil, but LGBT is not a cult.  Marriage is marriage, period.



Well, LGBT is a myth, which is composed of a cult.

Marriage, according to nature, is the joining of one man and one woman, designed to sustain a viable culture, by providing for procreation within a stable, sustainable family which raises the progeny through the guidance and nurturing common to both distinct genders.

This is a principle in nature, which where adherence is sought and practice, success and happiness are assured to the extent possible, where it is not, failure and despair are assured, again, to the extent possible.

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who readily accept natural laws where they pertain to physics, they completely dismiss the laws governing human behavior.

The means to violate such without consequences are precisely the same.  Yet they act as if there's a viable option.

If it were not so tragic, it would be hysterical.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Alabama (amongst other States) voted to ban interracial marriages, that vote was overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
> ...


That's ridiculous. You aren't reporting anything.  You're just repeating unproven accusations and expressing your opinion.

More to the point, what does Harvey Milk have to do with a gay marriage ban in Utah?  Nothing.  Your entire fallacious arguments is based on an unproven accusation that Harvey Milk sodomized a teen and in your opinion gays respect him for this; therefore if gays are allow to marry, they will adopt children and sodomize them.    

It might comes as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of gays and lesbians, do not consider Harvey Milk a messiah or father figure.  He's recognized by both homosexuals and heterosexuals as the first gay to hold public office in a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness.  This in itself was a major accomplishment for a gay in his day.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't have to prove something that does not exist.
> 
> But you do if that is your thesis; the affirmation is on you.
> 
> You know SCOTUS is going to rebuke your way of thinking when it rules.



"rebuke"?

Now THAT is hysterical.

I honestly see no way that this nation is going to avoid civil war.  

There is no means to sustain a nation on this level of stupidity.

Invalid reasoning remains invalid, without regard to who or how many adhere to its foolish conclusions, be the Judge the SCOTUS or every human being on earth.  Makes absolutely no difference.  

Where foolishness is adhered to, deterioration, death and destruction follow and, this without exception.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That is an established fact, not at all unlike Gerry Studs. Yet ANOTHER homosexual proven to prefer little boys.

Homosexuals do not largely think of Alfred Kinsey in terms of his 'work' screwing children and documenting the results as he 'studied' the sexuality of children, neither do they think of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, but they define them, nonetheless.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

"Well, LGBT is a myth, which is composed of a cult."

No, it is not.  There is no evidence that sexual orientation is a cult.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



No, it is not.  Another hetero-fascist off the deep end.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Now "I honestly see no way that this nation is going to avoid civil war" is true, because you honestly can't see.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_R_My_Key completely self-analyzes with "Invalid reasoning remains invalid, without regard to who or how many adhere to its foolish conclusions, be the Judge the SCOTUS or every human being on earth. Makes absolutely no difference."

Your analysis is silly and makes no difference.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Sil, you have to offer something that supports your argument that LGBT is a cult before anyone can rebut it.  Your opinion is only that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Well, LGBT is a myth, which is composed of a cult."
> 
> No, it is not.  There is no evidence that sexual orientation is a cult.



Actually there is.  And you need look no farther than the chronically brayed bludgeon: "Homophobe".  Which means in effect: DENIER! Which is down the middle: CULT.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "Well, LGBT is a myth, which is composed of a cult."
> ...



You are a hetero-fascist.  No there is no evidence that sexual orientation is a cult.  You can't offer anything of the sort.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_R_My_Key completely self-analyzes with "Invalid reasoning remains invalid, without regard to who or how many adhere to its foolish conclusions, be the Judge the SCOTUS or every human being on earth. Makes absolutely no difference."
> 
> Your analysis is silly and makes no difference.



Hysterical.

Notice folks, how when the SCOTUS rules with them, they're the final authority, when they rule agains them, its meaningless.

This is called relativism and its what used to fast track civil war.

This is because relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

When a government fails to be worthy of trust, thus fails to serve justice, the people quickly loose faith in the government to sustain justice and take matters into their own hands, in terms of serving justice.  

This threatens the power of the government, which attacks the innocent and PRESTO!  It's war.

What tickles me the most is how self righteous the purveyors of injustice are, shortly before the war.  This of course all changes when they're being strung up and burned.

Those sufficiently long in the tooth will recall the history of Il Duce Italia.  That jutting jaw was tucked well back when they were stringing him and his wife up by their feet and dowsing them with kerosene. 

"It Mattered" then... On THAT you can bet your ass.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So I am a hetero adherent to socialism with a nationalist bent?  Which is to say in modern terms that I am a hetero Crony Capitalist, because I recognize the otherwise undeniable signs of a Cult in the Ideological Left and their absurd advocacy to pretend that what is incontrovertibly abnormal is normal?

Does anyone need anything else?   He is behaving in terms that DEFINE Cultism, while projecting such on his opposition.  

That is a rationalization which is DOWN THE MIDDLE: Relativism.  Absolute nonsense, stated as the purest essence of sound reasoning.

Delusion personified.  You can NOT make this crap up!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

There is no relativism when all Where_ is doing is offering his silly opinions.

No proof that LGBT is  a cult.

He says that hetero-fascism is anti-socialism?  How does socialism (an economic system) have anything to do with LGBT?

  The far right reactionaries have found another clown who does not but project.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

The clown needs to 

(1) define cultism

(2) define relativism

Then show LGBT is a cult and that relativism has anything to do with it.

I love toying with these far right reactionaries.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette at least makes some sense.

Where_ simply raves on.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> (1) define cultism



Cult: A group or other organization with deviant and novel beliefs and practices; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing, which cannot truly represent that which it claims.  Presenting delusional adherence to what is readily demonstrated to be false.



JakeStarkey said:


> (2) define relativism



the irrational doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society or historical context, and as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.



JakeStarkey said:


> Then show LGBT is a cult and that relativism has anything to do with it.



The Advocacy for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, often referred to as the LGBT Community advocate for the society to set aside the biological standard and pretend that what is abnormal, having deviated from that standard is otherwise NORMAL. This is an irrational position which sets aside objectivity and subjectively revises falsity to represent truth.  This establishing the LGBT Community as a group with deviant beliefs and practices; along with a misplaced and excessive admiration for their deviancy, while presenting delusional adherence to what is readily demonstrated to be false.



JakeStarkey said:


> I love toying with these far right reactionaries.



Reactionary: one who reacts.  See: Jake Starkey react to my argument, through adherence to the very trait which he comes now to lament, projecting such upon his opposition.  Proving himself to be an adherent to relativism, the political component of such being known as socialism.

Now, is there anything else I can do for ya?  

'Cause I'm here for ya, I wantcha to know that.

​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

What?  No snappy come back?  

Are we just going to wait, let this one slide back into the ether and pretend it never happened?

Would anyone care to help Jake define that tendency?  

Here's a clue to get ya goin': it starts with 'Cow'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no relativism when all Where_ is doing is offering his silly opinions.
> 
> No proof that LGBT is  a cult.
> 
> ...



*You *used the term fascism, which is nothing more than socialism with a nationalist bent, merging industry with government (known more recently as _Crony Capitalism_) as a stepping stone toward socialism, *SPECIFICALLY* tying socialism (fascism) to The Advocacy for the Normalization for Sexual Abnormality, OKA: The LGBT Community.

So once again, we find a socialist coming to lament the very thing of which they are guilty, EVEN AS THEY LEVEL THE CHARGE!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are a hetero-fascist.  No there is no evidence that sexual orientation is a cult.  You can't offer anything of the sort.



Heretic!  Heretic! screams Jake...lol..

No evidence eh?



> Michael Swift wrote in the Gay Revolutionary, reprinted from the Congressional Congress:
> 
> "We shall sodomize your sons, the emblems of your feeble masculinity of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups and in your movie theatre bathrooms, in your army bunk house in your truck stops, in your all male clubs and in your houses of Congress, wherever men are men together. Your sons will become the puppets of our bidding. We will recast them in our image and they will come to crave and adore us (sound like Romans 1?). We shall write poems of love between men, we shall stage plays in which men openly caress men, we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap superficial sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating in your cinematic screens. We shall rise in a vast private army to defeat you. We will conquer the world because warriors inspired by, and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible. The family unit, the spawning ground of all lies, betrayals, hypocrisy and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens the imagination and curbs the free will must be eliminated. All
> churches that condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. One of the major requirements of a position of power in this new society will be the indulgence in this Greek passion and any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from positions of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men." The Militant Gay Movement


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Michael Swift wrote in the Gay Revolutionary, reprinted from the Congressional Congress:



Sil you omitted the first line of the piece (which hit pience sites normally do):

"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."​
The piece is a satire, a comic rendition.  LOL



Internet History Sourcebooks Project
>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> "This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."​
> The piece is a satire, a comic rendition.  LOL



Let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, that it was meant to be satirical.  Often questionable movements or cult will couch the truth in their rebuttals to "the ridiculous"...

..Read what he said again and consider all the recent laws passed to indoctrinate youth especially in various states.  Ones that come to mind are:

1. The law in California requiring public school children celebrate Harvey Milk, victimizer and sodomizer of at-risk youth who were unable to legally consent to the sex he had with them as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world' [that IS a direct quote from the law].

2. The law in California and now other states that forbids someone under 18 from accessing a therapist if that minor wants his or her own autonomy to throw off sexual imprinting done to them by a molestor, if that imprinting is homosexual.  If it is heterosexual, conflicting laws, statutes, pleas, regulations and urgings from the church of LGBT liberally allow "outreach" to these youth "to help them transition to gay" or "come out of the closet" [code for "help them transition to gay"] ie: therapists, laymen and propagandists of all walks can "reach out" to "help [read: influence?]" erstwhile straight-identifying kids to bridge over to gay.  But the opposite is met with a stern warning and criminal charges if the child himself wants to not identify as gay anymore; even when molestation is involved.

3. Laws getting passed where clearly confused "gender indentity disorder" youth are able to use opposite-gender bathrooms in schools.  Not to treat their confusion mind you: to _encourage it _and force other children to see their affliction as "normal"..

4. GSLEN outreach to schools teaching youngsters about "fisting" and the like, about "how sodomy is normal" etc.

5. The squelching of programs in schools that teach that anal sex puts a child in the highest risk group for contracting HIV and a host of other STDs.

6. The blackmail and extortion of public officials if they don't tow the line of the gay agenda.  Careers ruined and their demise serving as an example to others should they open their mouth.  The sister-organization to GLSEN "GLAAD" in media just was part of trying to ruin Phil Robertson's career for daring to say he does not approve of the gay cult values.

Would Phil Robertson then become one of those "invisible men" for not buckling to the command to fall in line?  Read the "spoof" again.  How eeriely true it has become.  Couching the truth in absurdity is the anesthetic to slip the needle under the skin.''  [bracket's mine]



> Michael Swift wrote in the Gay Revolutionary, reprinted from the Congressional Congress:
> 
> "We shall sodomize your sons [*Harvey Milk*], the emblems of your feeble masculinity of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups [*1, 2 & 3 above*] and in your movie theatre bathrooms, in your army bunk house [*repeal of DADT*] in your truck stops, in your all male clubs and in your houses of Congress, wherever men are men together. Your sons will become the puppets of our bidding. We will recast them in our image and they will come to crave and adore us [*1, 2, 3 & 4*] (sound like Romans 1?). We shall write poems of love between men, we shall stage plays in which men openly caress men, we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap superficial sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating in your cinematic screens. [*GLAAD running Hollywood now*] We shall rise in a vast private army to defeat you. We will conquer the world because warriors inspired by, and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible. [*lawsuits and ruined careers for not "falling in line" with the agenda*] The family unit, the spawning ground of all lies, betrayals, hypocrisy and violence will be abolished. [*Gay marriage*] The family unit, which only dampens the imagination and curbs the free will must be eliminated. All
> churches that condemn us will be closed. [*Utah*] Our only gods are handsome young men. One of the major requirements of a position of power in this new society will be the indulgence in this Greek passion and any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from positions of influence. [*ruined careers*]  All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men." [*Phil Robertson, the CEO of Chic-Fil-A etc*.]



For now, Phil Robertson and Gov Christie etc are being tried in the media and hung without a jury trial.  For now.  But remember, this passage above was "a joke" many many years ago.  Food for thought..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> 2. The law in California and now other states that forbids someone under 18 from accessing a therapist if that minor wants his or her own autonomy to throw off sexual imprinting done to them by a molestor, if that imprinting is homosexual.




My wife and I adopted a child from Foster care some years back.  She was 12 at the time and    I can tell you for a FACT, that Foster Care TEACHES children to claim that they're Homosexual.  This sets the child up as something 'special'.

And by 'Special' I do not mean, someone of exceptional means and abilities..  I mean someone who can claim to 'need, want and desire' practically anything, and where someone rejects their request, they need only break out the "Homophobe" defense.

LGBT, is a scam of the infamous variety, with the only current close second being Global Warming.

It's all about dividing the culture toward the goal of the acquisition of power.

It's a deceitful premise, being fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


----------



## Barb (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_R_My_Key completely self-analyzes with "Invalid reasoning remains invalid, without regard to who or how many adhere to its foolish conclusions, be the Judge the SCOTUS or every human being on earth. Makes absolutely no difference."
> ...



*You are delusional, sadistic, and quite dangerous.* 

In the matter of justice, which those like you bastardize in the face of the broad popularity of offering equal justice under our laws to ALL people, regardless of sexual orientation, to claim poutrageous "victim" status, which is bad enough, but YOU want to add to that some twisted sociopathic justification to *"war."*

What you are really afraid of (all evil, even yours, is rooted in the banality of fear born of stupidity), is the loss of one more privileged status over "others," no matter who those others are. It's pretty universal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

*Where_r_my_Keys argues inconsistently and incoherently rants on for his point of view*.

Barb took him apart easily.  The 14th protects everybody, including Where_r_my_Keys (who viciously attack those who opposed his failed policies) and his fruitcake buddies.

Benito Mussolini would be impressed with his bombast?  No, the Leader would say, "Turn the nutter out into the alley."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Barb said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



 Yeaaah 

My Crackhead Decoder Machine is in the shop.  SOoooo I have no means to discern whatever it is you're trying to convey there.

If you can boil that feckless drivel down to something cogent or at least coherent, that would be GREeeaat.

An if ya can't get that done, that'll be fine too.  Probably preferred.


----------



## Barb (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



You're sick. Seek help.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> *Where_r_my_Keys argues inconsistently and incoherently rants on for his point of view*.
> 
> Barb took him apart easily.  The 14th protects everybody, including Where_r_my_Keys (who viciously attack those who opposed his failed policies) and his fruitcake buddies.
> 
> Benito Mussolini would be impressed with his bombast?  No, the Leader would say, "Turn the nutter out into the alley."



If you have some idea of what Barb is saying, please, feel free to translate.

And you're argument is still failing in the religion forum.  Did you intend to get back over there or are ya just hoping that the page turns and no one is going to notice that you got your intellectual ears boxed?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Barb said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Never mind Jake, she said even she doesn't know what she said, except she disagrees with what I said.  It's standard "Progressive" boilerplate.

Barb, sweety, I'm going to have to ask you to calm down and try to act like an adult.  If ya can't do that, I'd ask that you run back over to read more about Justin Bieber and his recent failure to reason soundly.  

But if you can calm down and produce a coherent response I would love to discuss whatever concerns you may have.  Now come on!  Put on those big girl panties and let's have a discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > *Where_r_my_Keys argues inconsistently and incoherently rants on for his point of view*.
> ...



You are a nutter who fails in argument with Barb.  You are inconsistent and incoherent.

Go back and read Barb's comments carefully and objectively.

Then you will understand why you are standing bent over.

Son, don't dish it if you can't take it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'm a what?  A Nutter ya say?

Oh now THAT is hilarious.  You're a Euro-peon?  That is ADORABLE!

That explains the whole story from soup to Jake.

Barb's comments were unintelligible.  I've invited her to reorganize her 'feelings' and have a discussion.

If she feels that her point of view is worth expressing, she'll do so through a well organized, thoughtful prose.  Assuming she's capable of such.  

Now I for one hope that she is.  She seems to have some passion and that always promises some quality entertainment.


----------



## Barb (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Your comprehension skills aren't my problem. 

And never, ever, call me "sweety," you sub-human piece if shit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Anytime Barb.  

The world waits with baited anticipation to learn what it is you're all amped up about. (Precious, Jake really needs this.  He's countin' on ya.  Please don't let him down!)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Barb said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Well we know from this screed that Barb's angry.  But we knew that when we read her signature.  Socialists are angry people.  They can't explain WHY they're angry, but we know THEY'RE PISSED!

But hey, such is the nature of the lowly Relativist, they serve evil.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> *Where_r_my_Keys argues inconsistently and incoherently rants on for his point of view*.
> 
> Barb took him apart easily.  The 14th protects everybody, including Where_r_my_Keys (who viciously attack those who opposed his failed policies) and his fruitcake buddies.
> 
> Benito Mussolini would be impressed with his bombast?  No, the Leader would say, "Turn the nutter out into the alley."



So far as I understand recent history, the 14th does not protect cult members.  You'd have to demonstrate that LGBT isn't a cult but instead 'born that way' and then you'd have something.  Right now all evidence points to it being a cult and indeed many gays are famous for saying it's a culture war and not one of an innate state of being. 

They know.  We know.  The obvious is sometimes so obvious that it is comical.  LGBT is a cult and they aren't covered by the 14th.  Utah's voters' rights to their 1st Amendment expression through their vote IS however protected constitutionally.

Go get 'em Jake.  You've got your work cut out for you against that landslide of evidence.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Barb, honey, do you intend to make a coherent argument tonight?

Netflix is callin'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > *Where_r_my_Keys argues inconsistently and incoherently rants on for his point of view*.
> ...



Well, this is all true.  But common sense provides that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political movement of the Ideological Left, designed to promote the acquisition of power, for the Left.  

This being profoundly demonstrated by individuals who simultaneously claim that their sexual lives are private, even as they set such on public display, for public discussion.

Much as those same people profess themselves to be Americans, while simultaneously professing their rejection of the principles that define America.  

I mean nature precludes one from simultaneously adhering to both the thesis and the antithesis, thus the notion that those touting Foreign Ideas hostile to American Principle could make a valid claim of being Americans is INSANITY personified.

Of course, when push comes to shove and they're forced to explain how they could justify the claim, they immediately reduce the concept of America down to the lowest common denominator, which is of course that they were born in the Americas.  As if sliding down a birth canal is a potential point of pride!  "WOO HOO!  I'm PRESENT man!"

Funny stuff.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

So Barb.  Is that it?  Please don't tell me that you're a one irrational diatribe pony, Darlin'?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Oh well, I'm off to watch some classics.

Please feel free to talk amongst yourselves.  I'll pick it up later.


----------



## Barb (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > *Where_r_my_Keys argues inconsistently and incoherently rants on for his point of view*.
> ...



More and more state governments, as well as the preeminent one in the US, the FEDERAL government, doesn't seem to agree with your "findings," 

or your leavings. 

Go figure.


----------



## Barb (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



When you talk around the water cooler at work - as if anyone would willingly associate with you - but for argument's sake, do you discuss what you and the wife or girlfriend (poor woman!) did over the weekend? That would be setting *"such on public display, for public discussion.*

YOU do not set *"the principles that define America,"* no matter how swelled your head is, and your exclusionary attitude is actually something *hostile to American Principle *.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Just so.  Sil and Where_ "do not set the principles that define America, no matter how swelled [their collective] head is, and [their collective]exclusionary attitude is actually something hostile to American Principle .

Your small reactionary far right cultic principles are not supported by the great majority of America.

Quite obvious.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

Barb said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Well it's my water cooler, so I talk about whatever I want.  But I do not talk about our sex life.  Because that is what is known as PRIVATE!  

Allow me to explain: 

Private: belonging to or for the use of one particular person or entity, such as the single entity formed through the joining of one male human being and one female human being, in what is known as marriage.

The Principles that define America, they were declared in the Charter of American Principles, through which the Colonial Congress declared the basis for American sovereignty.  You're ignorance of that American fundamental, explains much.

Was there anything else sugar?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Just so.  Sil and Where_ "do not set the principles that define America, no matter how swelled [their collective] head is, and [their collective]exclusionary attitude is actually something hostile to American Principle .
> 
> Your small reactionary far right cultic principles are not supported by the great majority of America.
> 
> Quite obvious.




Hysterical.  Poor Barb offers up a reasonable, but fatally flawed argument and here you are, advancing vacuous nonsense.

Jake you need to understand that popular opinion has absolutely NO CORRELATION with logical validity.  Meaning that if every person on earth believed ot the core of their being that sexual abnormality is normal, that would not -in fact- mean that what deviates from the biological standard, is normal.

Here, let me show you what a valid argument looks like:



JakeStarkey said:


> (1) define cultism



Cult: A group or other organization with deviant and novel beliefs and practices; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing, which cannot truly represent that which it claims.  Presenting delusional adherence to what is readily demonstrated to be false.



JakeStarkey said:


> (2) define relativism



the irrational doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society or historical context, and as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.



JakeStarkey said:


> Then show LGBT is a cult and that relativism has anything to do with it.



The Advocacy for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, often referred to as the LGBT Community advocate for the society to set aside the biological standard and pretend that what is abnormal, having deviated from that standard is otherwise NORMAL. This is an irrational position which sets aside objectivity and subjectively revises falsity to represent truth.  This establishing the LGBT Community as a group with deviant beliefs and practices; along with a misplaced and excessive admiration for their deviancy, while presenting delusional adherence to what is readily demonstrated to be false.



JakeStarkey said:


> I love toying with these far right reactionaries.



Reactionary: one who reacts.  See: Jake Starkey react to my argument, through adherence to the very trait which he comes now to lament, projecting such upon his opposition.  Proving himself to be an adherent to relativism, the political component of such being known as socialism.

Now, is there anything else I can do for ya?  

'Cause I'm here for ya, I wantcha to know that.

​
Now did you want to answer this, scamp?  (Please understand  that I ask purely to shame you, knowing full well that you've absolutely NO MEANS to do so.)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_ continues to fumble, stumble, mumble, then crumble before Barb's astute comments.

A far right reactionary, like Where_, is so far right of the mainstream that only the echo chamber of his hive give him the reassurance that he is not crazy.

Son, the Constitution is the document by which American law is decided good or bad.

Not you, or those who think like you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_ continues to fumble, stumble, mumble, then crumble before Barb's astute comments.
> 
> A far right reactionary, like Where_, is so far right of the mainstream that only the echo chamber of his hive give him the reassurance that he is not crazy.
> 
> ...



Yet another absolutely baseless rant from Jake.

What jake is doing, is appealing to what he believes will be popularly accepted by his comrades.  Our local logicians will recognize this as argumentum ad populum, or the appeal to popularity.

It is a fatally flawed logical construct, thoroughly specious and absolutely unworthy of consideration.  

It is also ALL that one can reasonably expect from the brighter socialists.  (The dimmer collectivist bulbs simply have no means to communicate, period.  See: The Non-Occupying Occupiers) 

Meaning that if Obama himself were here, THAT is the BEST you could expect from him.  

The coolest part is that if the entire cadre of comrades in DC were on this board, they'd fare no better than these poor basket cases.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_ continues to fumble, stumble, mumble, then crumble before Barb's astute comments.
> ...



Where_, your silliness is just . . . silliness.

That you won't accept the Constitution and SCOTUS opinions is your problem.

Somehow in your mind, abortion rights are 'socialism.'  Son, here this will help you if you think throwing out words is all you have to do instead of logic, fact, and analysis.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> So far as I understand recent history, the 14th does not protect cult members.  You'd have to demonstrate that LGBT isn't a cult...




False, Romber v. Evans demonstrates quite conclusively that laws targeting homosexuals for unequal treatment under the law are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  Your "understanding" is faulty.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Sil does not want to understand.

It's that simple.

Sil is wrong.  Hard for Sil, that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Hmm.

1- So you're stating as a fact, that I do not accept the US Constitution.  

Please, tell me what specific words I said, which you took as my rejecting the US Constitution?

From there, we'll set your assertion in context, with the highest probability being that you will not provide an answer, because you know you're about to get your intellectual eye shut, AGAIN!  The context of which will be that you're lyin' through your rotten limey teeth. Which FTR: there is no right which provides for you to do so.  This being so because in so doing, you fail to bear your responsibility to not injure an innocent through the exercising of your right.  

2- SCOTUS opinions are just that, opinions.  Where those opinions serve justice, I accept them, where they do not, the ruling is moot and no American is obligated to respect any law or ruling that fails to serve justice.  See: Objectivity.  The essential trait to sustainable Governance.

3- Individual human rights can only exist where there are correlating responsibilities.  The right to speak freely, is intrinsically tethered to the responsibility to not exercise your speech to the detriment of another's means to exercise their rights.  And we can use the old 'You can't yell fire in a crowded theater' to demonstrate that.  

Now be a dear Jake and inform the board of the responsibilities that sustain one's 'right to murder the most innocent of human life, for whom one is solely responsible, having conceived such, through their wanton and willful behavior, OKA: A Right to an Abortion.

*What RESPONSIBILITY provides that one can reasonably claim that as a valid right intrinsic to their life and the pursuit of the fulfillment of their life.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > So far as I understand recent history, the 14th does not protect cult members.  You'd have to demonstrate that LGBT isn't a cult...
> ...




Well it is a good thing that the marriage standard does not 'target' homosexuals.  As The Marriage standard treats every single person who applies, equally.  

There is not a single state, county or local municipality which prohibits a homosexual from marrying anyone that they can talk into it, as long as the person with whom they apply, represents the distinct gender.  Meaning that a homosexual male can marry a homosexual female; note for those keeping score that THAT is TWO HOMOSEXUALS, who will not be denied a license to marry  anywhere in the United States.  PROVING that there is NO discrimination against a person because they are homosexual.  The marriage standard, like ANY standard denies membership, to promote the best interest of the institution.  What homosexuals are upset about is that THE STANDARD EXISTS!  And it is THAT which they are attacking.   It is just another example of the Ideological Left undermining the viability of the United States.  This toward the goal of undermining the means of the United States to project influence in defense of our interests.

But with that said, Homosexuality is a behavior.  

What you're saying is that a court decided that it is wrong to 'target' someone because of a behavior that they claim is beyond their means to control?

Well, I expect that this will come as welcome news to the murderin', stealing, harassin', psycho and sociopaths out there nestled into their bunks for life.

What other destructive behaviors that threaten a culture's viability are protected by the US Constitution?

If one has a RIGHT to be a homosexual, what responsibility sustains that right?  Can ya tell me at least THAT much?  We know that by claiming to be unable to control one's sexual cravings for sexual gratification with another person of their same gender, a fair percentage of this board feels that THAT comes with a right to redefine fundamental cultural principles.

What responsibility does one need to bear to have a valid claim to THAT RIGHT?

Enjoy the silence folks, it will be followed by irrational, unbridled and thoroughly feckless hysteria.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> False, Romber v. Evans demonstrates quite conclusively that laws targeting homosexuals for unequal treatment under the law are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  Your "understanding" is faulty.



Unequal treatment for what?  In California for example, those "targeted" for unequal treatment in the law that is Prop 8 and other statutes are homosexuals and polygamists and minors and those too closely related by blood.  All of those people are currently "targeted" for unequal treatment.  As they should be.  DOMA defined that states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves outside of barriers to racial marriage only.  

The cult of LGBT has not passed the test for the 14th as to marriage.  In fact, nowhere in the constitution is there a mention of a federal authority for marriage.  Loving does not apply to the Harvey-Milkers because they are a culture, not a race.  Behaviors cannot be considered a race; however reflexive or compulsive they might feel.

Pitted against the church of LGBT trying to get the 14th to apply to them in marriage is the 1st amendment rights of Utahans to vote their faith at the polls.  They did so.  2/3rds majority.  You say it's less than that now.  Then put another initiative on the ballot since you're sure you'll win there the only way it's legal.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I answered your silly hypothetical...I said if that happened then when pigs fly out of your ass, you can fuck it. Pigs are much smarter than chickens so if science found that chickens could consent...well, pigs for sure. So...I will answer it again. If science finds chickens and pigs have the cognizance to consent to sex...by all means, fuck away. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZzBh9ezZo"]The Dutchman and His Sheep[/ame]


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Marriage isn't defined by nature, it's defined by man either in their legal system or religious one. Your religion is free to discriminate and not marry any couple it doesn't want to, the state is not.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The procreation argument is a red herring.
> ...



Procreation _*is *_irrelevant to legal, civil marriage...and it's failed every time it is brought up in court...because procreation is not a qualifier for legal, civil marriage.

Besides, we ARE procreating.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Swift wrote in the Gay Revolutionary, reprinted from the Congressional Congress:
> ...



Meh...they probably believe the Gay Agenda is real too...

The Gay Agenda Revealed!


----------



## Bumberclyde (Jan 25, 2014)

Mormons are anti-freedom, everyone knows that. Homophobic too.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



That "gays can marry someone of the opposite sex" argument sounds vaguely familiar...where have I heard it before? 

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? *They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."* This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

When anti miscegenation laws were struck down, that argument was finally rejected (and it set a precedent)



> But with that said, Homosexuality is a behavior.
> 
> What you're saying is that a court decided that it is wrong to 'target' someone because of a behavior that they claim is beyond their means to control?
> 
> ...



Sexual orientation is innate...acting out on it is the behavior. Both gay and straight sex is a behavior, but the attractions are innate. 

Neither "behaviors" are illegal. Murder and theft are both crimes. Consenting adults fucking is not a crime. Do you propose to criminalize consenting adult sexual behavior? 



> If one has a RIGHT to be a homosexual, what responsibility sustains that right?  Can ya tell me at least THAT much?  We know that by claiming to be unable to control one's sexual cravings for sexual gratification with another person of their same gender, a fair percentage of this board feels that THAT comes with a right to redefine fundamental cultural principles.
> 
> What responsibility does one need to bear to have a valid claim to THAT RIGHT?
> 
> Enjoy the silence folks, it will be followed by irrational, unbridled and thoroughly feckless hysteria.



What responsibility sustains your right to be heterosexual? What responsibility sustains your right to your free exercise of religion? 

Even if you insist against all scientific research and the testimony of gays themselves who say that their sexual orientation is not a choice, in a free society what difference does it make? 

Gays don't have to establish a societal benefit in their being married or simply being, you have to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing gays to marry or exist. So far? Epic fail.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > False, Romber v. Evans demonstrates quite conclusively that laws targeting homosexuals for unequal treatment under the law are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  Your "understanding" is faulty.
> ...



And yet court after court is finding in favor of marriage equality and are citing the 14th. Just how do you reconcile that with your musings?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



*Does anyone know if this is the first time on this board that an Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality has publicly stated that their advocacy includes: The Normalization of Bestiality?

What the member has stated, in principle, is that where the subjective pursuit of a sufficient rationale, to alter public policy, comprised of individuals who eschew objectivity, thus are incapable of recognizing the truth, are unworthy of trust, unconcerned with morality and justice: OKA: "SCIENCE!" (and should NEVER to be confused with the objective study of the physical universe, OKA: Science), declares an individual is capable of consent and, THAT "SCIENCE!" is used as a basis to CHANGE THE LAW, that HER advocacy includes Normalizing Abnormal Sexual Desire for gratification with ANIMALS, OKA: Bestiality, but  would naturally include any other relevant example.

Meaning that the current trend wherein 8-10 year old CHILDREN (2nd to 4th Graders) are being 'educated' in every aspect of sexual technique, IN YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOL, that when "SCIENCE!" concludes that your 10 year old is cognizant of the issue and 'understands what's going on', that he or she "IS" CAPABLE OF CONSENT, that Seawytch and her most special friends will be LEGALLY ENTITLED to pursue sexual gratification with your 10 year old. *

And once again, we have a beautiful demonstration of fatal flaws intrinsic to Relativism.

The issue, within the Advocacy for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what is RIGHT and what is Wrong, in their 'feelings', THEIR ONLY CONCERN: IS WHAT IS _LEGAL_. 

MORALITY is wholly IRRELEVANT to the Relativist.  

Now, with that said, who else wonders if there's any correlation in the fact that those leading the charge to Normalize Sexual Abnormality are Anti-theist?  And that Anti-theism, like socialism, rests purely in Relativism?  

Anyone seeing a pattern here?  

We're discussing the homosexual relativist, but let's examine the Hetero Relativist and the depths of THEIR Sexuality.

It's LEGAL to kill their unborn Children, and they CHOOSE to do so.  Because it's easier TO MURDER THOSE WHO THEY ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE, than TO NOT HAVE SEX INTERCOURSE.  

*Evil*, tethered to *evil*, side by side with *evil*.

Now the next time you read or hear an Anti-theist talk about the _Cruelty_ associated with their disembodied contexts of scripture, how God promoted Slavery and murdered innocent sexual deviants and their children, etc.  

Remember that you witnessed on this site, an advocate of normalizing sexual abnormality admit that she STOOD ON THE TWISTED PRINCIPLES WHICH PROVIDES THAT: Children can be used for sexual gratification, once "SCIENCE!" finds a rationale sufficient to CHANGE THE LAW, so that having sex with children is LEGAL!

I wonder if Seawytch would stand for some questions?

I'd like to flesh this out, if she's got a couple of days.  Perhaps, if she is so inclined, she'll PM some of her comrades and ask them to join us.  

We may be making a break through here.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Huh.

Is it me, or is the member representing the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality standing upon Popularity, with seemingly NO CONCERN for a sound sustainable Morality?

Sure looks like it.  

What she appears to be doing there is applauding: 'The Subjective Ruling by the judiciary, dismissing the objective 'will of the Peoples'.

That always tickles me. 

A collectivist, who likely has spread throughout her record on this board, innumerable instances touting "DEMOCRACY", is standing today, upon judicial tyranny; an outright proponent AGAINST the representatives of "the Peoples', voting for that which the MAJORITY OF 'THE PEOPLES' WANT.

See how that works?  

It's a subjective desire which could NOT CARE LESS about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and ONLY WHAT IS LEGAL.

Notice the trend.  See this 'movement' for what it is.  

And ask yourself, does the subjective 'RULING', over a case brought to court by a subjective advocacy, which contests an OBJECTIVE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

Does it serve that which is GOOD?  Does it promote a viable healthy, sustainable culture or does it serve divisiveness, dividing the culture?  

Does it undermine the objective 'rule of law'?  

Does it promote or subvert sound governance?  

Does it HELP or HARM your means to reasonably expect that your government represents you?  Does it help or harm your means to raise your children in a safe and morally sound, sustainable environment?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Oh for god's sake, shut up. I do not advocate adults having sex with children. I, Seawytch, personally believes that the age of consent should be 18 across the board in all states. 

I said that you can have sex with a cognizant adult pig...should *SCIENCE* ever discover or create an adult pig capable of verbally or in writing giving consent for you to fuck it. 

Can we stop being silly about fucking talking pigs and chickens now?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Yes, when civil rights are violated I support the judicial over-ruling the "will of the people" (see also tyranny of the majority).

Like here in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia. I agree with the court's decision in that case despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary. 







See where public opinion was in 1967? Do you see where "the will of the people" would have allowed blacks to marry whites? 

When the "will of the people" violates the US Constitution, it is the job of the judicial to rule. See _Heller _if you're curious how it works.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Example of a red herring: "There is not a single state, county or local municipality which prohibits a homosexual from marrying anyone that they can talk into it, as long as the person with whom they apply, represents the distinct gender."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Example of Jacksonian democratic majority argument: "There is not a single state, county or local municipality which prohibits a homosexual from marrying anyone that they can talk into it, as long as the person with whom they apply, represents the distinct gender."

SCOTUS was quite clear that states cannot violate civil liberties.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Example of false equivalency: "Does anyone know if this is the first time on this board that an Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality has publicly stated that their advocacy includes: The Normalization of Bestiality?"

Why is that perverted social cons get excited about bestiality?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_ has an issue with adult consent, obviously, and marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



My 'right to be' a heterosexual, would be sustained by my responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right.

My right to freely exercise my religion is sustained by my not exercising my religion to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

For instance, I would not exercise my right to be sexually normal, in such a way that would threaten the means to another to exercise their right to be sexually normal. 

And as far as that goes, I do not exercise my rights in any way that threatens the means of others to be sexually abnormal, as long as they are not subjectively rationalizing that their need for sexual gratification overrides my right to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature, which provide that Children are not suitable sexual partners.  

Now the thing about right sustaining responsibilities is that, where someone threatens one's means to exercise their rights, it falls to the righteous to defend themselves from that threat.

This is me, defending my means to exercise my right to reason objectively, which is sustained by my responsibility to not exercise my right to the detriment of another to do the same.

Which is threatened by those who eschew objectivity.

To take it a step further, I claim the right to keep my sexual life private.  In sustaining that right I bear the responsibility to not publicly discuss my sexual life.  I do not require the culture to salute my sexual desires.  As I require the public to leave me alone on the subject.

I don't go out and lobby congress to allow me to marry.  I don't ask for permission from anyone to do what I am rightfully entitled to do.  I just do it.  

This in contrast say, YOU, who requires that the public RECOGNIZE you as a person who craves sexual gratification from people of her own gender.  

IF I were saddled with such, I'd just go about my business and wouldn't ask anyone to accept it or not.  As, I do not give a red rat's ass what anyone thinks about my sexual life.  But it truth, it's never come up, BECAUSE: I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC.

See how that works?  

Here, say it with me: "I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC."

Doesn't that feel good?  It frees you, doesn't it?

There're those things which are appropriate for public discourse and those things which are PRIVATE, thus are INAPPROPRIATE for public discourse.

YOU, on the other hand, CLAIM the right to sexual privacy, while you simultaneously PROMOTE YOUR SEXUAL LIFE, going so far as to DEFINE YOURSELF, BY YOUR SEXUALITY.

You are sexually abnormal, great, who gives a fuck, as long as ya stay away from the kids.

But, it's not enough for you to just BE what you are, which is what you people claim to want.

No, NO!  You can't even be satisfied with EVERYONE SALUTING YOU FOR WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE!  You NEED THE ENTIRE WORLD TO PRETEND THAT YOUR NORMAL, WHEN YOU ARE DECIDEDLY ABNORMAL.  

You claim that you're just being honest, when EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR MOVEMENT IS A LIE!  

We call this INSANITY.

Anything gettin' through here?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Jan 25, 2014)

^^^^^^^^^^^^ MORON ALERT!!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_'s hetero-fascism is on full rant.

If you are ever in a position where you are being forced to marry someone of your own sex, put the Jake Signal to the skies, and I will fly and save you.

You are, simply, a bombastic dunderhead.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, NOT a GENDER or a FUNCTION OF SKIN Color.

A black person is black.  They're black no matter who they screw.

Just as a female remains a female no matter who she screws, same with a male.

This is a function of biology.  A natural, immutable fact. 

Now homosexuality is the ONLY notion which someone can bring to the table and expect 'special status', wherein there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS.  At BEST it reflects a hormonal malfunction. Meaning that it is little more than AN ATTITUDE.

One can be queer as the King one day and straight as an arrow the next.  

I have SEEN IT, FIRST HAND!  WITNESSING THE DAY TO DAY TRANSITION OF A FEMALE, FROM STRAIGHT TO HOMO, consistently cycling, sometimes inside a single 24 hour day.  

It's all nonsense.

You want to nibble the notch, FINE... just shut up and do it and keep it to yourself and your ADULT twisted sister.

Because when you ADVERTISE it, you INFLUENCE OTHERS, who may be less capable of understanding that what you're DOING is harmful to YOU and your twisted ass partner.  THE KIDS for instance.  

Anything gettin' thru here?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

And the ranting continues.

Nope, Where_, you are wrong: philosophically, socially, culturally, legally, morally, and so on and so forth.

Your religious and civil liberties are not violated by marriage of two consenting adults.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




We call your post insanity too. Rambling insanity. 

Wanting to be legally married is not "discussing in public what is private". It's just a marriage license drama queen.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.
> 
> Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, NOT a GENDER or a FUNCTION OF SKIN Color.
> 
> ...



Wanting to have sex with a member of another race is a behavior. Were they born with that behavior to want to have sex with someone of another race or did they choose it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Wanting to be legally married is not "discussing in public what is private". It's just a marriage license drama queen.



Oh, just so.

Well played.  Where_ the drama queen.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_'s hetero-fascism is on full rant.
> 
> If you are ever in a position where you are being forced to marry someone of your own sex, put the Jake Signal to the skies, and I will fly and save you.
> 
> You are, simply, a bombastic dunderhead.



Hetero-fascism again?

What happened, did the Homophobe farce, did that finally play out?  It was only a matter of time before enough people figured out that it was a fake word that in no way meant what they claimed it said.

That word always tickled me: Homophobe: "Fear of self"  

Me: "Please stop undermining cultural viability through your attempts to force everyone to pretend that abnormality is normal."

Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality: "You FEAR YOURSELF PAL! "

Me: LOL! Whuh?

Funny stuff.

But not nearly as funny as the new one, wherein we're FORCING PEOPLE TO MARRY!

Classic Deceit, fraudulently advance as a means to influence the ignorant.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_'s hetero-fascism is on full rant.
> ...



homosexuality = socialism?



forcing people to marry?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.
> ...



There's nothing preventing you from getting married legally.

Just find a person of the opposite gender and apply for a license.  Fill it out.  It's automatically approved, then you find a person who is licensed to marry folks and PRESTO!  You are legally married.

(Notice folks, that this is the end of the line for her most recent deceitful rationalization, because if she responds to this point, her only option is to discuss what she claims is a private matter, IN PUBLIC.)

Don't you agree SW?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

> *Just find a person of the opposite gender and apply for a license*.  Fill it out.



That is a violation of the 14th.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



There was nothing preventing individuals from getting married legally under interracial bans.

Just find a person of the same race and apply for a license.  Fill it out.  It was automatically approved, then they find a person who was licensed to marry folks and PRESTO!  They were legally married.

Don't you agree WRMK?


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Does anyone recall who it was the initiated the whole 'forced to marry' thing?  

I ask, because Jake, here, is implying that its me.  And he knows that its not true, yet he implies it as truth.

(Jake, just to help ya through this, cause I'm a compassionate person, that means that you're  either a liar or a fool. It doesn't matter which, because both are equally unenviable and for the same reason.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



What civil right is being violated?

Do you have a right to change the standard established by nature, to sustain a viable culture?

What are your sustaining responsibilities intrinsic to this right?

You must be one MIGHTY IMPORTANT PERSON!  

Does this in any way, relate to your behaving in a way that deviates from the biological standard?  

How does your demand that the entire society pretend that your sexual abnormality is normal, sum to you being denied that which you are rightfully entitled?

Please BE SPECIFIC.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

My apologies Jake.  The post to which I referred earlier, is not in the religious thread.  It's on this thread.

I'm reposting on this page for your convenience:



JakeStarkey said:


> (1) define cultism



Cult: A group or other organization with deviant and novel beliefs and practices; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing, which cannot truly represent that which it claims.  Presenting delusional adherence to what is readily demonstrated to be false.



JakeStarkey said:


> (2) define relativism



the irrational doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society or historical context, and as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.



JakeStarkey said:


> Then show LGBT is a cult and that relativism has anything to do with it.



The Advocacy for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, often referred to as the LGBT Community advocate for the society to set aside the biological standard and pretend that what is abnormal, having deviated from that standard is otherwise NORMAL. This is an irrational position which sets aside objectivity and subjectively revises falsity to represent truth.  This establishing the LGBT Community as a group with deviant beliefs and practices; along with a misplaced and excessive admiration for their deviancy, while presenting delusional adherence to what is readily demonstrated to be false.



JakeStarkey said:


> I love toying with these far right reactionaries.



Reactionary: one who reacts.  See: Jake Starkey react to my argument, through adherence to the very trait which he comes now to lament, projecting such upon his opposition.  Proving himself to be an adherent to relativism, the political component of such being known as socialism.

Now, is there anything else I can do for ya?  

'Cause I'm here for ya, I wantcha to know that.

​
(Edit: Jake, you have consistently avoided answering this.  Perhaps your friend Seqbytch will help ya through it.  IF ya ask nicely. )


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Gotta run out for a bit.

You guys and gals feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves.  I'll catch up when I return.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Does anyone recall who it was the initiated the whole 'forced to marry' thing?
> 
> I ask, because Jake, here, is implying that its me.  And he knows that its not true, yet he implies it as truth.
> 
> (Jake, just to help ya through this, cause I'm a compassionate person, that means that you're  either a liar or a fool. It doesn't matter which, because both are equally unenviable and for the same reason.)



The homosexuality = socialism?  and   forcing people to marry?  

The material came from your quote.  If you don't believe homosexuality is akin to socialism, then say it.  

And you lie, and you are a fool if you think anyone believes that you can turn this stupidity on anyone but you.

Seawytch is toying with you unmercifully.

Where do these far righty reactionary wing nuts originate?  Their anti-American radical agendas are so easily exposed.

Tis what tis.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Equal treatment under the law. 

Seriously...how can you ask that question when Federal Court after Federal Court is finding that anti gay marriage laws violate the Constitution? 

Marriage is a fundamental right. The fundamental right to marry the consenting adult of our choice is being denied to gays and lesbians in _some _states. Over 40% of the country, however, currently correctly applies the 14th Amendment to include it's gay and lesbian citizens. (and growing rapidly)


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Chief answered that quite succinctly for me. Thanks Chief!


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...



I s this ruling real?


do you believe it really  happened?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/336722-scotus-says-keep-punishing-the-rs-for-cheating.html


the right only believes what the want to believe.

both of these SCOTUS rulings are real.

why do you pretend one isn't?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

You are worthless to this country if you refuse to deal with the facts.

Your party cheats in elections.

that makes you traitors


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone recall who it was the initiated the whole 'forced to marry' thing?
> ...



Or there's a little role-playing going on.  Promote the absurd in the opposition to make your cause look sane by comparison.  Seen it a million times.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

How can you believe ONE decision from the SCOTUS exists and then pretend another one is not real?


because you on the right have no moral code


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Gotta run out for a bit.
> 
> You guys and gals feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves.  I'll catch up when I return.



You left your computer online...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Or there's a little role-playing going on.



Good for you! Keep that love life fresh!


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

why do you on the right pretend one scotus decision is real and another isn't?


this alone proves you people are traitors to this country


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

the scotus said the republican party needs to be punished further for cheating voters.


You just pretend its not real.

bad info in means bad decisions out.

Your worthless if you cant absorb FACTS


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...



http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/news/la-pn-supreme-court-rnc-voter-fraud-20130114



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts? 



how can you pretend one is not real while believing the other is real?





The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a &#8220;national ballot security task force&#8221; that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to &#8220;patrol&#8221; minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to &#8220;refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities &#8230; directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.&#8221;

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid &#8220;normal poll watching&#8221; by Republican officials.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.
> 
> Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, NOT a GENDER or a FUNCTION OF SKIN Color.
> 
> ...



Your ignorance, hate, and stupidity are getting through loud and clear. 

And you make the same mistake as others hostile to equal protection rights for same-sex couples, by incorrectly perceiving this as a biology issue, when in fact its an issue of individual liberty concerning the right of citizens to self-determination, where whether one is gay as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant:  



> It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.*
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> the scotus said the republican party needs to be punished further for cheating voters.
> 
> 
> You just pretend its not real.
> ...



The Supreme Court's refusal to hear arguments regarding the revoking of the Consent Decree have nothing to do with the topic.
There is no evidence that anyone is denying the validity of the Supreme Court's decision not to view the case. 
The decision not to hear the Consent Decree case with no dissent and without comment was not a ruling.

To say that anyone is accepting a ruling ... At the cost of not equally accepting another ruling ... Would require two rulings as well as some kind of evidence that it wasn't accepted by the people you assume are objecting to it.
*Try to better understand what you are posting ... And Have A Good Day!*

.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

this is about scotus decisions.


You cant SITE one and pretend another didn't take place


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

You cant just limit what you believe is real to what makes you feel all warm inside


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> You cant just limit what you believe is real to what makes you feel all warm inside



I personally think the statement quoted above could use a little clarification as far as how it may apply to any argument offered at this point.
Please attempt to write coherent sentences ... And express your thoughts in a manner that offers some clue as to what it is you are trying to say.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



You are right that Where_'s post is absurd.

The insanity comes from the far right wing nuts who fight against an inexorable current moving them into the back waters of history.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

SCOTUS opinions are very clear, and clearly the current runs against hetero-fascists.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> this is about scotus decisions.
> You cant SITE one and pretend another didn't take place



You cannot cite a ruling and a decision ... Then pretend someone agrees with one or the other ... While pretending they may object or agree with either of the two ... For the express purpose of satisfying your misunderstanding of the argument.

.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


So guilt by accusation is fact.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Jan 25, 2014)

Gay marriage? We can't have weird shit going on in Utah, now, can we?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Gay marriage? We can't have weird shit going on in Utah, now, can we?



Every state has weird shit going on according to other states.  State autonomy is huge in our democratic system.  If Utah wants to be mormon in majority, then they are mormon in majority.  They have to pitch their line to the voters and if the voters like what they hear, then they vote the way they vote and the laws of that state become the laws of that state according to what the people want to hang over their own heads. 

If gays want to change Utah to make their church of LGBT replace the mormon church, then they'd better hit the pavement and start wooing voters there.  Because, and mark my words on this, this SCOTUS is not going to go down in history as the SCOTUS that forced Utah to abandon their 1st Amendment rights to accomodate/enable a homosexual culture to flourish there in direct violation of and in mortal sin of the faith of mormonism.  

The issue may very well be the 1st Amendment vs the 14th.  And if you're in the gay camp, you may win, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you...


----------



## Bumberclyde (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage? We can't have weird shit going on in Utah, now, can we?
> ...



In the US, everyone is equal. Maybe Utah should secede and form its own communist state.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 25, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yup. If you worship the largest offenders, it's going to be assumed you agree with their overall philosophy.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > this is about scotus decisions.
> ...



dear fucking clown.

Your idiot minions keep saying its not real.

eat shit liar


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> SCOTUS opinions are very clear, and clearly the current runs against hetero-fascists.



and they agree your republican party needs to continue being punished for CHEATING the American people to steal power


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

tm, go take your meds.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



So you're saying polygamy should be allowed in Utah?   Like I said, don't hold your breath on this SCOTUS making that happen..


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> tm, go take your meds.



truth are my meds.


Facts are my meds.

try them sometime


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

You can not present a SCOTUS decision as a fact and then REFUSE that a different SCOTUS decision does not exist.


get it assholes


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

If you will accept NOTHING as fact you cant USE facts.

if this one is fact than you have to accept your fucking party has cheated in elections for decades

The SCOTUS agrees


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone recall who it was the initiated the whole 'forced to marry' thing?
> ...


  That was you.



JakeStarkey said:


> and   forcing people to marry?



Again, YOU. 



JakeStarkey said:


> The material came from your quote.



It came from YOU. That is demonstrated by your failure to link to where I said it.



JakeStarkey said:


> If you don't believe homosexuality is akin to socialism, then say it.



Homosexuality is a behavior caused by a hormonal abnormality, causing the abnormal sexual craving for gratification through sexual interaction with people of one's own gender. 

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rests in irrational reasoning that is drawn from Relativism, which is the same species of reasoning that socialism rests upon.

Therefore it follows that where you find an Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, you will find a socialist.

It's not a complicated equation, but it's probably beyond your limited intellectual means.



JakeStarkey said:


> And you lie, and you are a fool if you think anyone believes that you can turn this stupidity on anyone but you.



No way to know what that is supposed to mean.  If you feel strongly about whatever it is you're trying to convey and can find a coherent construct through which TO convey it, I'll be here for ya.



JakeStarkey said:


> Where do these far righty reactionary wing nuts originate?



There's no such thing as a "Far Right".  The Ideological right simply recognizes, respect, defends and adheres to the observable principles in nature which govern human behavior.  

One either recognizes those principles or one doesn't.  There is no "REALLY, SUPER FERVENT RECOGNITION" of them.



JakeStarkey said:


> Their anti-American radical agendas are so easily exposed.



American principle, the principle upon which America was founded, that which was used as the justification for our ForeFathers to declare themselves independent of the former governance, are those natural principles to which you refer as "far righty reactionary wing"[/QUOTE]

Which, if you're keeping score simply means that THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.

Now this is so, because Nature provides that one cannot simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

It simply cannot be done.  

Now what that means Jake, is that one cannot adhere to the spurious tenets of socialism, which diametrically OPPOSE American Principle and American principle.

Now before ya trot out your feckless "Nuh Huh" boilerplate.  Re-read the above fact and let it soak for a few minutes.  Cause none of that is even remotely debatable, with you're lame-ass attempts to do so, notwithstanding.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

The homosexual = socialism was stated by Where_ because he associates the relationship with relativism, a term he does not understand and misuses.

Indeed, on our political spectrum, the far right reactionary wing nuts exist literally and philosophically.

I think he thinks he is expressing his beliefs in terms of "natural law."

I think he thinks he is a philosopher without understand the meaning and use of terms.

This is going to be fun.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



True conservatives and libertarians would think so.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > And FWIW: miscegenation and the laws against it, were not comparable to Homosexuality.
> ...



Hey, if the SCOTUS were here to defend themselves and their ruling, I'd be happy to hear what they have to say.  

They are not however here to do so, therefore, their opinion is just THAT, an opinion and a vacuous one at that.

The issue is A STANDARD, which exists in KEEPING WITH AND IN DEFENSE OF, THE BIOLOGICAL STANDARD INTRINSIC TO THE HUMAN BIOLOGY.

What the Court declared was: 'We changed for those guys, so we gotta change it for the homos too.' Which is logically invalid, as there is no principle in nature which says that discrimination is inherently INEQUITABLE.

Standards EXIST for the PURPOSE of DISCRIMINATION.   That's what they DO!

You can like, not like, agree or disagree.  It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN.

Anywhere in the United States, in any State, County, Parish, Municipality, village or town, ANY   TWO HOMOSEXUALS OF DISTINCT GENDER can walk into the Court house, apply for a license to marry and expect to be readily accepted: *THAT IS A FACT of the incontrovertible variety.*

This establishing that the marriage Standard DOES NOT UNFAIRLY, or INEQUITABLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HOMOSEXUAL.  PERIOD.

Now I as a male, carpet munching, hooter groping, long-stroking, bottom-busting, veracious consumer of female trim, OKA: A Red Blooded American MAN, I cannot expect to go ANY WHERE in the US* and have any HOPE of marrying my best buds.  

I mean if my pal comes up to me and says "Where, buddy, I need to use your insurance", or "I could really use some of those tax deductions' or Where old friend, When you die, it'd be a BIG help to me, if I could collect your superior SS coin... or if they just wante to take advantage of the numerous other financial strategies that are intentionally given to married couples as a means to encourage to the extent possible, financially sound families that the unmarried folks DO NOT ENJOY and INTENTIONALLY DO NOT ENJOY, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST UNMARRIED PEOPLE. I can't expect to that me and my good friend of the male gender would be accepted for marriage.  *Excepting the States which suffer the greatest depths of moral depravity and I wouldn't live there on a bet, for any reason.  As those places no longer represent a TRACE of "AMERICA".  They represent the least common denominator.

So the Marriage Standard, which holds that: ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN JOIN together, to create ONE ENTITY (Which, as I said above, reflects the sustainable biological design where two examples of the respective genders, having committed themselves and their lives to one another, join as one body through coitus, which is impossible in the sexually abnormal configuration common to homosexuality) and in so doing, DOES discriminate against MEN MARRYING MEN AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMEN, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO!

Which in NO WAY, discriminates against the homosexual marrying anyone they can talk into it, as long as they do so within the construct of the morally sound and soundly reasoned MARRIAGE STANDARD.

This is not even debatable friend.

But at the end of the day, we don't give a damn what three full-size men, a goat and two midgets do in the privacy of their bedroom, with a case of Quaker State, a unicycle, a shower curtain and 50' of garden hose.

Because THAT is PRIVATE and we respect a person's privacy and we're BIG believers in privacy.

But the US is NOT going to allow men to marry men and woman to marry women.

At least not while there remains a trace of 'America' left breathing on this planet.


 "Not gonna do it!  Wouldn't be prudent, at this juncture" ​


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Hetero-fascistic babble.

We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.

"It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you for your entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance.  Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME to the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning: 



The  "Nuh-huh" defense.


​




JakeStarkey said:


> Hetero-fascistic babble.
> 
> We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.
> 
> "It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 25, 2014)

LOL even newcomers know jake is a lying fool


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hetero-fascistic babble.
> 
> We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.






Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you for you entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance.  Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning:   The  "Nuh-huh" defense.  ​



Mockery informs us of Where_'s inability to negate the points against is arguments.

Will he have the strength of character to tell us he is relying on "natural law" as the basis of his defense of one man/ one woman marriage chant?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.


No, that isn't what marriage is unless it been decided by the state, hopefully not imposed by a radical minority. Same gender marriage is an immitation of traditional marriage. Why two men anyway? Why not three men? Are you closed minded? Traditional?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you, for your entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance.  Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME to the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning: 



The  "Nuh-huh" defense.


​


JakeStarkey said:


> Hetero-fascistic babble.
> 
> We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.
> 
> "It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.





Yurt said:


> LOL even newcomers know jake is a lying fool



Yes... I wanted to give him a big send out, cause he's tried SO HARD!

But unfortunately Jake didn't make the intellectual cut.  

He has a lot of heart, but he just doesn't have the intellectual means to acquire the skills that would provide for his contributions to be worthy of consideration.  So I've had to cut him from the line up.

(He rode poor old Barb like a rented mule last night.)  It was embarrassing to watch.  I felt bad for both of 'em.  Particularly Barb.  

I had hopes that in the light of day he'd improve, but, sadly, it got worse.  

Turns out that he's a mimic too and they're just sad.  

They literally contest that which they feel, in their own mind, is winning the argument, so instead of changing their point of view to reflect the superior reasoning, they mimic the style of the purveyor of such, erroneously feeling that THAT represents the weight of the argument.  

But in short, yes.  They're idiots.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> If you will accept NOTHING as fact you cant USE facts.
> 
> if this one is fact than you have to accept your fucking party has cheated in elections for decades
> 
> The SCOTUS agrees



So are you suggesting that a party ... In the case of the "Consent Decree" the Republican party ... "Has cheated for decades" because the Supreme Court dismissed hearing a case that would remove a measure that has supposedly eliminated cheating for the last 3 decades?
You need to get your interpretation of the facts straight ... It either works or it doesn't ... Make up your mind please.

.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Ya do?  

That's fine.

Reason suggest however that given your inability to contest the "insanity", that your intellectual means is such that you're stationed somewhere significantly below 'insanity' on the intellectual ladder.

How sad for you.  No wonder you people suffer such low self-esteem.  Have you considered putting in some effort?  

A lot of folks use it and it really seems to work!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > If you will accept NOTHING as fact you cant USE facts.
> ...



Such profound patience with foolishness.  I cut that individual from the list inside of two posts.  

IMHO, they lack any potential for ever being able to negotiate even these simple equations.

IOW: They're helpless and as such: HOPELESS.  In the natural world, individuals such the individual to which you respond above, are known as "FOOD"!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Guilt or commonalities assessed through association?  

You imply that association with and advancement of common reasoning, can't be used as a reasonable means of 'profiling', and/or that assessing one's associations and the adherence and public advocacy of common beliefs does not reasonably stand to count them as a member of a given group.

Can you explain how your position could be justified as something akin to reasonable?

(Oh MAN!  Now I'm all tingly with anticipation.)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you, for your entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance.  Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME to the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning:
> 
> The  "Nuh-huh" defense.
> 
> ...



 Where_ can't carry an argument at all (no, natural law does not cut it, bub, does it?), so he resorts to _ad hom_.  What he does not know that many of us made the grade here by combatting those who are really good at the negative arts for years and years.  Where_ does not have the art at all.

Where_, old buddy, you are a noob, and fun to toy with but you won't have the ability and stamina to stay around for long.

Watch.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So, where are homosexuals being treated inequitably?

Are Sexually-normal males and females being accepted for marriage somewhere?  

I'm not aware of it happening, but if you've some skinny to which I'm not privy, SPILL!

Marriage IS a fundamental right.  That's true.  It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES.

It's like this: I have a natural right to speak freely in public.  That right is sustained by my bearing the RESPONSIBILITY TO RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH HOLDS THAT I DO NOT EXERCISE MY RIGHT, TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER INNOCENT TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN RIGHTS.

When you, as a homosexual, demand that the FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS OF MY CULTURE BE LOWERED TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF, YOU INJURE MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT, to the extent possible discourages abnormality from being promoted by tiny, but otherwise MOUTHY minorities of hormonally malfunctioning cranks and their close friends and family, who love them as any reasonable friend or family member would and doesn't enjoy seeing them all sad because they're abnormal and as such can't marry 'Uncle Fred' and 'Aunt Jane'.  So we dismiss the understandably supportive familial core along with the understandably sad cadre of hormonally malfunctioning cranks and move on.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that I'm a mean person, because I haven't stood up and applauded you for being all fucked up and proud, further joining your movement to wreck the nuclear core of the culture.  

But you need to know that as a person, I find your to be pleasant enough, even likable.  

But I am a person with at least the minimum threshold of common sense, sufficient to recognize that changing societal standards is a VERY SERIOUS thing, which requires serious consideration, sober, objective reasoning and as such axiomatically invalidates adherents to relativism from participation, as you folks are simply incapable of objective consideration of anything, let alone a policy which is DESIGNED TO DEAL YOU OUT, and FOR SOUNDLY REASONED PURPOSES, which I'd go into, but if I did, I fear you'd think me even meaner than ya already do and I've grown so fond of you that I hate to risk it.

​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I see.  So because the reasoning which you've come to contest, was invalid where the issue at contest was racial, circumstance which in NO WAY was even REMOTELY RELEVANT to the biological standard, which stands as the FOUNDATIONAL CORE of the Marriage Standard, you feel that despite the argument being SPOT ON in PERFECT relevance, now, that it should still fail? 

Do you understand that what you're saying is that they let the blacks in, so they gotta let the homos in too?

And do you further understand that in so claiming, you are in effect arguing that there should be no standard to represent the nuclear core of the culture?

And from there, do you understand that such a position is the very definition of foolishness?

I hope you will make the effort to respond in defense of your fatally flawed and now thoroughly discredited point of view. I'd be very interested in your response.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> When you, as a homosexual, demand that the FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS OF MY CULTURE BE LOWERED TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF, YOU INJURE MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT, to the extent possible discourages abnormality from being promoted


This failed reasoning has been rejected by the courts when the states have attempted to use it to justify denying gay Americans their civil liberties: 



> [T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS



That society has historically, traditionally, or culturally sought to disadvantage gay Americans, or to perceive homosexuality as abnormal, is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant  it has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples 14th Amendment right to access marriage law, and in no way supports the states desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

"Marriage IS a fundamental right. That's true. It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES."

The appeal to natural law fails.  The Constitution determines the appropriate standard.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Ok, but then does every issue work as if they have the same connections, or the same premise and/or the same case studies somehow being connected like they are attempted to be connected ?* I think not*, but the joining of these cases together over the past years has been a tactic (IMHO), and it is being done or it has been done for unsavory reasoning in many respects. 

People are seeing this by what has transpired over time in this nation now. Many issues don't even connect at all in the ways that they are being connected in these cases or case studies like they are, but they are being connected in an attempt to use the power of one specific case, to then push through something else even if it isn't connected or shouldn't be connected in that way at all.  

Those who think that the people in this nation don't see what is going on in these things, well they are wrong, because in fact they very much do see how this is working out, and how it has been working now, and they don't like it because they feel they are losing ground instead of sharing ground. 

I guess in some of these cases, it needs to return to what the people want as a majority on some of the issues, and this I think they want for their families, their children, and their beliefs as a majority on some of the specific issues in which do affect them in their life or lives.

I think if they don't get what they (the majority) might want in some of these cases soon, then they may turn on the rulers who ruled against their will as a majority people on some specific issues, and so they may be looking for a job sooner than later if it swings against them to much more in some of these cases that are being looked at or reviewed by the majority now.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Marriage IS a fundamental right. That's true. It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES."
> 
> The appeal to natural law fails.  *The Constitution determines the appropriate standard*.



What does the constitution say is the appropriate standard then ?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times


glad to see some of you at least accept SOME scotus decisions.

but only the ones you seem to like huh assholes


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "Marriage IS a fundamental right. That's true. It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES."
> ...



Thank you.  SCOTUS opines what the standard is, and that Court along with the federal judiciary have given solid indications what the stand is going to be, don't you think so?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

they will not try to make gay marriage illegal.


they also will NOT help the republican party cheat


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

your trash heaps get nothing


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > When you, as a homosexual, demand that the FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS OF MY CULTURE BE LOWERED TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF, YOU INJURE MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT, to the extent possible discourages abnormality from being promoted&#8230;
> ...




Yeah I've read Lawrence and the court was then, as it has been for some time, off their nut. 

But such is the nature of the relativist.  They say stupid stuff, because they eschew objectivity.

In truth, a society has every right to judge what is acceptable behavior and what is not, because this is the right of the individual, within their own respective lives and the society is merely the summing of the individual.  

I say in truth, on the basis that this is what nature provides and, given any alternative to nature, in terms of supremacy in the standard setting department, its design stands supreme. 

In effect, the court in Lawrence declares that Standards themselves are discriminatory, thus are invalid.  

The Court was wrong.  Standards are designed specifically for the purpose of sustaining the values and other cogent elements which the entity establishing such seeks to preserve, with the natural standard of marriage being no exception.

Homosexuality is sexual deviancy and as such, is to be DISCOURAGED.  The Biological design, along with the intellectual extension of such, in the Marriage Standard is part and parcel of our culture recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering TO, nature's law in discouraging the normalization of that which is otherwise: abnormal.  

As I said, without regard to the SCOTUS and their addled, subjective opinion, the United States will not provide for the fundamental core of the American citizenry to be bastardized to the point where it literally promotes abnormality to cultural normality.  As to do so is to kill all potential viability.

It's not going to happen.  

There's a curious rumor going around that the citizenry of the US is helpless to do anything about what the US Government does.  Those who hold to that feeble, hapless nature common to the sentiment of that rumor, have no kinship with Americans present in the United States, or the principled origins from which America was fired.

Allow me to remind you and the Court from where we come, by revisiting the Charter of American Principles, declared when our ForeFather determined that we, the Americans, are individually, free and sovereign unto ourselves.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"

I'd like to thank you for your response and in taking your time to consider what I advanced.

I think if we had more opportunity to investigate our respective understandings, that we would find that we agree on more than we disagree.

I hope to read more of your thoughts as time passes.

Best regards.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Well said.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_'s natural law crap does not cut it.

Tis what tis.

Since I know the justices' 'judicial heritages', I think the split will be 7-2 or no less than 6-3 to uphold the 14th on the federal findings on these marriages.  If they do, and it is likely, marriage will be for two consenting adults.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 25, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That society has historically, traditionally, or culturally sought to disadvantage gay Americans, or to perceive homosexuality as &#8216;abnormal,&#8217; is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant &#8211; it has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples&#8217; 14th Amendment right to access marriage law, and in no way supports the state&#8217;s desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.



The 14th Amendment does not guarantee people the "right" to access the privelege of the legal state of having a driver's license if they are blind.

It's too bad they are blind.  But they just don't make the cut.  And yes, it's discrimination.

Likewise, most states have said "the qualifications of marrying mean you have one penis and one vagina, both adults, both consenting and not related too closely by blood" who can marry.

It's too bad people like to be gay.  But they just don't make the cut.  Only with gayness vs blindness, blindness is a state many are born with and if afflicted later, can never reverse.  However, we see gays often flowing fluidly from hetero, to gay, back to hetero again.  Anne Heche comes to mind here...

The Utah case is going to be more about these two things which at their root are ultimately about secular law.

1.  The 1st Amendment rights of the majority of Utahans who voted traditional marriage only in their state.  The Bible forbids by punishment of eternal damnation, the propping up or enabling of homosexual cultures within the boundaries that the faithful live.

2.  That the church of LGBT has as their messiah, a man who sodomized an _orphaned_ teen boy on drugs while officiating as his "father figure" and many others like him as representative of the LGBT movement "across the nation and the world".  And, that marriage immediately elevates these faithful defenders and followers of Harvey Milk's sexual example and identity to top-tier status to ....*drum roll*...... be able to adopt _orphaned _kids within Utah's boundaries. 

So propertly, Utah must not just assert its rights to decide on marriage within its boundaries outside race, but it is mandated by federal law to act to do so to bar the faithful of the church of LGBT to access the orphans currenly under Utah's protection.  Ironically, Harvey Milk himself once said in one his speeches that you can tell a lot about a movement by who they choose as their leader.  So, Houston, there's a problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

SCOTUS will not take into consideration LDS heritage or the Bible, only the Constitution.

SCOTUS will not consider LGBT as a "cult", for that is not what is being challenged.

SCOTUS will not consider hetero or homo marriage in terms of access to adopting children.

SCOTUS will not consider a "natural law" challenge to marriage equality for consenting adults.

SCOTUS will evaluate the State's challenge only as to whether Amendment 3 violates the civil liberties of Americans.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> glad to see some of you at least accept SOME scotus decisions.
> ...



Who are you (Truthmatters) referring to when you (Truthmatters) use the term "you" (?) in your (Truthmatter's) statements?
Please explain who is not accepting what decision ... And give us proof of the grounds on which you base that assumption ... Then how it may apply to anyone here (at USMB).

In reflection to what you seem to have posted repeatedly ... It would suggest that you are the only one that desires to favor one decision (Dismissing the Consent Decree case) ... And quite possibly not another (Decision against Utah's gay marriage law).
If that is the case ... You are the only person demonstrating any duplicity in regards to an offense surrounding accepting one decision and rejecting another in this thread.
Please try harder to comprehend the assertions you make ... And any type of valid accusation minus overt hypocrisy would be appreciated.

.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > That society has historically, traditionally, or culturally sought to disadvantage gay Americans, or to perceive homosexuality as abnormal, is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant  it has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples 14th Amendment right to access marriage law, and in no way supports the states desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.
> ...



Yep.

I would LOVE to be a starting running back for the Dolphins.  

Sadly, I lack the speed, the strength, the knowledge and the motivation to so much as try.

As a result I am assured that I will NOT be starting for the Dolphins in the linebacker slot.

Is that fair?  

Dam' straight it is.  

Are the Dolphins violating my 'right to be a linebacker'?  Nope.  

I am forfeiting my right to be a linebacker for the Dolphins, by failing to bear the sustaining responsibilities, to rise to the standard required for consideration.

Such is precisely the same for the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and their twisted desire to turn the culture on its ear, just so they can feel better about their sad selves.  And it's as simple as that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2014)

Gibberish from Mr. Natural Law.


----------



## Barb (Jan 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



communist? Polygamist...


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> glad to see some of you at least accept SOME scotus decisions.
> ...


Why do people have to be A-holes when you speak ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ...





Silhouette said:


> ...



Lots of typing

Lots of subjective, irrelevant personal opinions

But no citations of objective, factual case law in support. 

This is why you and others hostile to gay Americans civil liberties will continue to lose in the courts, and be relegated to the wrong side of history.


----------



## Barb (Jan 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



I'm neither conservative nor libertarian, and I think so! High time those men with one legal wife and several others only blessed by the church should be legally responsible for ALL their wives and the children they get welfare and food stamps through (rather than FOR).


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state.

You might want to read that case law yourself, since being less than a year old it's highly unlikely the Court will reverse its own decision that quickly.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, when civil rights are violated I support the judicial over-ruling the "will of the people" (see also tyranny of the majority).
> ...



If the SCOTUS strikes down anti gay marriage laws like they did anti miscegenation ones, the majority actually approves this time.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.



actually the burden of proof should be on you. It is a testament to the backwardness of the modern federal court system that some judges may think your right on that. 

The gay-marriage movement is not about equal rights under the law or they would be demanding that *no tax breaks result from relationship status*.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.
> ...



So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

> _I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state._



And above *strategic blunder *is to fail to add SCOTUS' clear meaning "no state can deny the civil liberties of citizens."  As well, George Pyle in the _Salt Lake Tribune _today, page O1 ,O4 devastates any religious underpinning for Amendment 3 as well.

"Reminiscent of when Bishop Wilberforce, in a debate over Darwin's recently public "Origin of Species, made a *strategic blunder *and his rival, T. H. Huxley, was reportedly heard to mutter, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands," before demolishing the good bishop's anti-evolution argument."

"Amendment 3's only hope of withstanding this flood of judicial scrutiny is if it can be defended as having a secular practicality . . . . Because creationism, creation science and intelligent design do not exist outside a mindset," and as for many, defense of Amendment 3 rests within a religious mindset, SCOTUS justifiably precludes their presence "from public school science classes.  Opposition to same-sex marriage may soon find itself in that bin."


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



It is demonstratively NOT about equal protection under the law as I have pointed out.

This guy in your link has the right idea if we are going to say the law cant differentiate based on relationship status. I see the author couldn't help but drag in an unrelated racial issue tho...that is pathetic.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

So far we have seen several primary arguments to defend Amendment 3

One is that somehow homosexuality creates "cults" that will be empowered by marriage in order to adopt orphans.  The same argument applies to heterosexual marriage and ignores that LGBT can adopt children in many states.

Another is based on Natural Law, and the gibberish of that argument requires no rebuttal.

Yet another is based on Jacksonian democratic majorities, which falls in that such cannot deprive citizens of their liberties.

Still another is that SCOTUS gave states the authority to regulate marriage, which falls on the fact that states cannot deprive citizens of their civil liberties.

I counsel all to study the legal 'pedigrees' if you wish of the SCOTUS justices to determine which philosophy of law they will use in applying the Constitution to the question of Amendment 3.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 26, 2014)

The idea that rights are inherit is admirable. And people may believe anything they want, but those beliefs vary. How to mesh them into society's rules is the  problem. The fairest, safest way to do that is thru Democracy/Republicanism, "Jacksonian Democracy", I guess. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!


The individual, gay, straight or otherwise, already has equal protection. You are attempting to apply it to relationships. Relationships are not guaranteed. Society decided what marriage should be but now we are told majorities no longer have the right to define legal relationships. Bi-sexuals have rights too, why not apply your logic to them and let them marry a male and female. Why should they have to pick one due to your value system. If you would deny them you are incredibly hypocritical.

I think we are too confused by propaganda these days and the hypocrisy of the law so blatant, it's time for the state to get out of the marriage business. No more automatic legal relationship, only what you contractually agree to with whomever or whatever you want.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.



Again, notice the ever present Relativist qualifiers: Legal and legally. 

Never 'moral' or 'morally'

But let's address the query: "...you must be able to identify a societal harm..."

Golly, let's see: What harm could possibly come from pretending that what is incontrovertibly ABNORMAL is Normal?

Does anyone reading this believe that societal delusion could result in societal harm?  I mean it works SO WELL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, what could possibly go wrong when ya sread it out over 300 million individuals.

Suffice it to say that even the homosexuals that marry hetero-females feel like their punched in the gut, when they find that their progeny is gay.  Just as they feel when they learn that their child has down-syndrome, or any other debilitating disease.

Need another clue?  "Homophobe".  Who uses this?  Homosexuals use it as a means to cow their opposition, by projecting upon others, that which THEY KNOW: HURTS THEM.  Which is that which identifies them as DEVIANTS!

Yet, there they are, demanding that YOU ACCEPT THEM AS THAT WHICH THEY KNOW IS FALSE, THEMSELVES!

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!
> ...



If the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has taught us anything, it is that Slippery Slopes: ARE SLIPPERY!  (Go figure, right?)

And I totally agree on the gov/marriage thing.

I would never have asked the State for a marriage license if my girl hadn't demanded it.  The Church service is all I needed.  Witnessed by our families and closest of friends, it says everything O needed to say.  And if te state came out today and said marriage was 'ILLEGAL', it wouldn't change my life on iota.  

I do not ask anyone for permission to exercise my rights.  I didn't get them from the state, so why would I ask them for permission to exercise them?  

The Advocacy for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality has nothing to do with rights, or equality, it has to do with the acquisition of POWER as a means toward advancing INEQUALITY.  

For the uninitiated, the Ideological Left rests upon Relativism.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL to the concepts: Truth, trust, morality and justice.

As a result, the Ideological Left see 'justice, morality, trust and truth' as that which is determined by those WITH THE POWER.  OKA: Truth, trust, morality and Justice are relative to who has the power to define them.

Sound familiar?  ("I have a pen and I have a phone".)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

And Where_'s natural law theory falls on its own inconsistency.  The hatred above expressed by him exposes that the end game is coming shortly for his hate group.

What is morally abnormal is the refusal by some Americans to allow others to live their private lives as they wish.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm about as Anti-Gay as you can possibly get - THe Gay Agenda people like to call me a "homophobe"  Gays are disgusting degenerates -*BUT*  as much as I don't like to admit it,   they are Grown People entitled to the same rights and obligations as normal people -  and IMO the Government has no business interfering in their perverted little lives.

They shouldn't have to fight for their right to form Marriages - it should be an unalienable right - even for perverts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Green Bean, you are a Great American, even in your hate and free speech and understanding the Constitution protects all.

I salute you.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.



Easy:

1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children.  And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.

2.  Gays and lesbians [same sex couples] lining up in unison to elevate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" as a matter of law, and now a new US Postage stamp as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".

3.  That Harvey Milk's "sexual-political achievements" were to bugger orphaned street teens on drugs, vulnerable and incapable of consent.  And his officiating to at least one of those boys as "a father figure"; a boy who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.

4.  The fact that once married, LGBTers will elevate, legally, to the top-tier of screened people to adopt orphaned children.

5.  The fact that even when gays are reminded of Harvey Milk's sex crimes against orphaned teens, the church of LGBT line up to defend and not denounce him.

6.  The law in California passed on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that requires young children in public schools to celebrate Harvey Milk for his sexuality. [see #3 & #5].

7.  The law in California on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that prohibit teens and other minors under 18 from seeking therapy on their own even to help change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, even if that child knows or suspects it was imprinted on them from molestation from a same-sexed perp.  While other laws, statutes and customs there not only don't prohibit the reverse in children [urging "coming out" gay or being "bi curious"] and dozens of entities that exist to "help children transition" from straight to gay.  [not a church?  yeah, right]/

8. First amendment rights particularly in Utah where the christian faith teaches that an entire culture [Sodom] and its inhabitants were wiped off the map because of homosexual behavior taking over an entire region as a culture. [See Jude 1 & Romans 1, also the Koran for muslims Poets 26.]  And that not just the homosexuals but also their enablers or apologists being sent to the Pit of Fire forever.


As long as the church of LGBT requires children to celebrate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" those adults must not be allowed access anywhere near adoptable orphans.

You DO realize what will happen the moment they get the legal toe in the door of marriage, right?  If any adoption agency DARES to screen them at that point as not savory to adopt, that adoption agency will be sued into next year and the US Supreme Court will be faced once again with a decision to examine the LGBT CULTure more closely, this time, and make that final determination to shelve children's protection in favor of an ideology that worships the Harvey Milk sexual ideal, which is, sex with orphaned teens who are preferably, according to Milk's bio, addled on drugs and incapable of mentally resisting his sexual advances.

I'll leave you, Seawytch, to contemplate once again the quote from Harvey Milk's bio by his gay friend/journalist Randy Shilts, 

_



			"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk]
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Oh it's MUCH worse than THAT.  

Follow the 'reasoning' that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is pushing and the laws against murder, assault, slander, arson unfairly discriminate against the psychopath, and the poor sociopaths can NEVER get a 'fair deal'.

in truth, the ONLY thing we're debating here is the distinction between those who have a means to reason soundly, thus who know the difference between what is sustainable policy and what is not and the ignorant, foolish and stupid, who are clueless about everything except pop-culture and who's got the best dope.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Law cannot punish LGBT without doing the same to the heterosexual community if the argument is that children are at risk of adult predators.

Sil's 'Harvey Milk' rant becomes increasingly incoherent.

Sil and Where_ rants above make it abundantly clear they both are becoming increasingly unstable psychologically and deteriorating mentally.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.
> ...



Apparently not. 

You failed to cite any objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights. 

Which is understandable, given the fact no such evidence exists.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!
> ...



Marriage is a fundamental right. Look it up.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 26, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> And Where_'s natural law theory falls on its own inconsistency.  The hatred above expressed by him exposes that the end game is coming shortly for his hate group.
> 
> What is morally abnormal is the refusal by some Americans to allow others to live their private lives as they wish.


Hate? And we were discussing gay marriage, not outlawing gay behavior. Simmer down.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Marriage is a fundamental right. Look it up.


Look it up where? It isn't in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independance. Oh, you mean Google.


> Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.


Gay individuals are treated the same. Hit a gay man, it's the same penalty. Marriage isn't a person. It's a legal union and unions are not guaranteed, sorry. Like I asked earlier, where would you draw the line and why?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.
> ...



I hope you argue in court.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_ is merely from a flawed natural law position.

He can't give you case law.  It doesn't exist.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And Where_'s natural law theory falls on its own inconsistency.  The hatred above expressed by him exposes that the end game is coming shortly for his hate group.
> ...



Yup, so the far right needs to remove the hate speech because all adults have the civil right to marry the partner they wish.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> I'm about as Anti-Gay as you can possibly get - THe Gay Agenda people like to call me a "homophobe"  Gays are disgusting degenerates -*BUT*  as much as I don't like to admit it,   they are Grown People entitled to the same rights and obligations as normal people -  and IMO the Government has no business interfering in their perverted little lives.
> 
> They shouldn't have to fight for their right to form Marriages - it should be an unalienable right - even for perverts.



Well, I agree that Government should not be licensing marriage.  Primarily because government in the US often provides for children to run the government, which results in every conceivable catastrophe.

Ask yourself how screwed up a 50 year old person has to be, to ADVOCATE that a MAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN!  

But the fact is that the REASON that it was decided that government SHOULD license marriage, is because GOVERNMENT WOULD DEFEND THE STANDARD THAT DEFINES MARRIAGE, AS A MEANS TO DEFEND THE CULTURE FROM THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW THREATENING THE CULTURE.

At the time, what is reality today, was a theoretical notion, a worst case scenario.  But the prevention of men marrying men, was most definitely a point which was used to justify the idea.  No one actually believed it would ever come to that (this), but the thought that it MIGHT was so abhorrent, that the State was given the licensing authority.

35 years ago, when my wife and I were married, you had to take a blood test to be sure that you didn't have a communicable disease.  I expect that some STD advocacy has had that tossed by now.  

But, the only way that ANY of this crap makes sense, is where one finally comes to understand that the purpose of liberalism (Collectivism) is to destroy cultures, then the whole thing makes perfect sense and ya go to the range to sharpen the skills that will be most central to your survival when they manage to fulfill their purpose.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Now we are back to collectivism and not far from socialism.

Moronic babbling by Where_.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Incorrect. 

There is no such thing as gay marriage, and there is no movement. 

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts. 

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now  unaltered and unchanged  to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.   

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Once again, the opposition rises to amaze the room with their oratorical skills, presenting the coveted: "NUH HUH!" defense.

The sad truth is that the Left goes to court ONLY if they know when, where and WHO is hearing the case.  

They literally have a series of strategies established, with favorable judges identified in each district.  So they wait and watch as the seas cycle, until they have a plaintiff and a judge.  And once they do, they file the case and begin walking it up the line.

It's all calculated, its all fixed and it's all a part of the cultural subversion/despotism intrinsic to socialism.

Again, it's the formula for civil war.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> There is no such thing as gay marriage, and there is no movement.
> 
> ...


Incorrect. Gay marriage exists in some states now. Marriage is redefined in those states to incluse (only) two same sex people, although I have no idea why it's limited to two and can't get an answer. Also the equal protection clause is about individual rights, not hetero, gay, threesome, group relationships.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Incorrect. 

There is no such thing as Same-sex Marriage.  Just as there is no such thing as 'black-white', 'down-up', 'Happy-Sad' and 'Leftist Americans'.

You see friend, nature precludes that something can be at two places at one moment.  Therefore it is impossible for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

What you're speaking to is the illusion of reason.  Wherein terms are merely redefined, without regard to the standing concept which the term formerly represented. 

This is a chronic ploy of collectivism.  For instance some months ago, we learned that our old insurance policies were "sub-standard".  Now what was this based upon?  Nothing.  Absolutely NOTHING.  They just snatched it out of the ether, demanding that they were now in charge and THEY DECIDE WHAT THE STANDARD IS!.  Which in the case of Obamacare, it means for the moment that you must buy a bunch of crap that YOU DO NOT NEED AND WILL NEVER USE!  

Never forget:

Deceit <=> FRAUD<=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


Thank you for providing me this opportunity to teach and, I hope that helps.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...





You just said "incorrect" and then agreed with him. There is no "same sex marriage" there is just marriage.

_"While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex."_ ~ Judge Robert Shelby Utah marriage case


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect.
> ...



Friend, the assault on Marriage is designed to destroy the institution, in finality.  

Please understand that the Left has been attacking marriage for decades.

They forced no-fault divorce, they undermined the role of the Father, etc.  All this does is to finally dissolve from the conscience of the culture the idea of FAMILY!

Now to see how this will work, you need look no farther than the ghettos where the children who's fathers and mothers, having bought into collectivism, being dependent upon the State for their subsistence, are pulled into STREET GANGS as a means of acquiring the innate desire for the security and the bond of family. 

Now, what happens when Street gangs become a problem?  

Meaning WHO DO YA CALL?  

Go ahead, take a stab at it: You call ___________________.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is a fundamental right. Look it up.
> ...




Look up Fundamental Rights. A gay man cannot marry another gay man. That violates the 14th Amendment.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




I would ask that if you are going to participate in an adult discussion, that you try to comport yourself within the scope of what is expected from an adult. 

That is to be of sober mind and to impart sound reasoning, to the extent that is possible.

If you truly are incapable of such, as the above response would indicate, please refrain from expressing yourself.  

Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being.  The institution is designed to a human analogue to the natural biological design, wherein, two individuals of the distinct genders dedicate their respective lives to one another, becoming one entity, through the joining of coitus, which promotes the biological imperative to procreate in sound, stable, fulfilling families.

This is not possible for homosexuals, except where homosexuals turn from their abnormal desires, rising above their malady and join with another of the distinct gender.

Meaning that where two homosexuals go to a courthouse and fill out an application and are accepted to play house, that is all they are doing, they are no more participating in Marriage, than they are falling toward Mars.  What they *are* doing is deluding themselves and, in the process, undermining the viability of their culture.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You're initially correct, a homosexual male cannot marry another homosexual male.  But that doesn't violate ANY principle inherent in the 14th amendment, because a sexually-normal male cannot marry another sexually-normal male.

See how that works?

It's called a Standard.  The purpose of which is to uphold the viability of the institution for which it stands.  The marriage Standard was designed and established by nature, the supreme authority in such matters.  

Homosexuality is a deviancy, often such deviancies are harbingers. 

In the tome The Population Explosion, it was observed that instances of homosexuality exploded during the latter phases of population stress, just prior to the mindless explosion of mayhem, which nature provided as a reset, a means to rebalance the population within the given environment.  

By Normalizing the Harbinger, you doom the culture.  

Now the ugly part here is that the Ideological Left does not give a tinker's damn about the health of the culture, except where they can use such as a means to further their acquisition of power.

And the collectivist homo, they NEED to be Married.  And they NEED to be MARRIED, because THEY feel that MARRIAGE will provide them with the status that can only come through the LEGITIMACY of MARRIAGE!  

What the mouthy radicals fail to understand is that the Marriage Standard is the source of the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage.  

The INSTANT that the Standard is lowered or removed, all legitimacy is lost.  

I think it was Mark Twain that said it best when he said: "I would never be associated with any group that accepts me as a member."  

This is serious stuff for sober minds.  When a culture has devolved to the point that it allows children and fools to establish its identity, it will quickly come to be identified as children and fools.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 26, 2014)

the world is not buying that diaper load buddy.


crawl back into you cave and cry


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Once again, the opposition rises to amaze the room with their oratorical skills, presenting the coveted: "NUH HUH!" defense.
> 
> The sad truth is that the Left goes to court ONLY if they know when, where and WHO is hearing the case.
> 
> ...



You are a moron.

All lawyers and legal teams do exactly the above.

It's the formula for successful litigation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

When is Where_ going to discuss these matters as a sane adult American?


----------



## Yurt (Jan 26, 2014)

when is jake going to start telling the truth and stop tattling all the time?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect.
> ...



No, this is also incorrect. 

In those states both same- and opposite-sex couples are allowed to access the same marriage law; the law is identical regardless the gender configuration of the couple. 

Indeed, it would be just as un-Constitution for a state to have some separate gay marriage law relegated only to same-sex couples.  

Because same- and opposite-sex couples enter into the same marriage contract, there is no such thing as gay marriage.  

Now, its understood some might use the term as a kind of political shorthand to identify the issue, but from a technical, legal, and Constitutional standpoint, there is no such thing as gay marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Hysterical!

Speak and children and fools and look who shows up.

I'm quite new to the forum, but the first couple of posts I read them, I learned that Truth does not matter to them and JakeStarkey is a collectivist posing, poorly, as something else, meaning that
truth doesn't matter to them either.

CLICK! GONE!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



This is absurd.

NATURE established the standard of marriage when it designed the human being.

The above argument merely regurgitates the same tired and erroneous collectivist boilerplate: "MAN DETERMINES RIGHTS!, etc.

Where it is determined that those who are decidedly unfit for marriage are suitable for marriage, then the legitimacy for which the standard provided is lost with the foolishness that struck the standard.  Leaving the species to once again RE-LEARN the lessons that came when the last culture raised stupidity as their guiding principle, producing the three dreaded Cs: Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.

Such calculations demonstrate the great chap-laden, crotch grinding standard of the Homosexual movement: idiocy on parade.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

Did this answer your question Seawytch?  That question being essentially, "how can anyone have a legitimate objection to gay marriage, legally speaking".  Not only does society as a whole have an implied objection, they have a mandated objection.  See the details on the messiah Harvey Milk for why that legal obligation to object to gay marriage exists.



> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.
> ...


----------



## Yurt (Jan 26, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



people on the left also do not support gay marriage.  stop being such a partisan leftwinger.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I imagine that some on the left don't want civil marriage.  Do you oppose it?


----------



## Yurt (Jan 26, 2014)

i support gay's right to marry just like heterosexuals.  i've repeatedly stated this jakey.  stop being a dumbass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hysterical!
> 
> Speak and children and fools and look who shows up.
> 
> I'm quite new to the forum, but the first couple of posts I read them, I learned that Truth does not matter to them and JakeStarkey is a collectivist posing, poorly, as something else, meaning that truth doesn't matter to them either.  CLICK! GONE!



How does collectivism relate to marriage?

And your natural law theory has fallen flat, so you _ad hom_.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Yurt said:


> i support gay's right to marry just like heterosexuals.  i've repeatedly stated this jakey.  stop being a dumbass.



So, for once, you are on the side of right and good.

I am glad for you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect.
> ...



And unfortunately there are those who use the term gay marriage in the context of partisan demagoguery, propagating the lie that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will change marriage, when in fact nothing could be further from t he truth. 

The answer to your question as to why only two persons are allowed to enter into a marriage contract is because that is how the states have composed their laws, and why its an equal protection violation to disallow same-sex couples access to a law theyre eligible to enter into. 

Disallowing three or more persons access to marriage law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because there is no law written to indeed accommodate three or more persons in marriage  a state cannot be in violation of the 14th Amendment by disallowing a class of persons access to a law that does not exist.  

Last, equal protection doctrine pertains to classes of persons adversely effected by the state, be they a suspect class or protected class, depending on the makeup of the class of persons, the nature of the right denied, and level of judicial review. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, on the other hand, protects individuals from state excess, where the government seeks to deny a particular individual is civil liberties. Due process can be either procedural (criminal law) or substantive (civil law). The courts have determined that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law not only violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but the substantive due process rights of same-sex couples as well.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 26, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > i support gay's right to marry just like heterosexuals.  i've repeatedly stated this jakey.  stop being a dumbass.
> ...



for once...lmao.  you're such a sissy tattletale...go run to the mods and report this crybaby.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



My only comment for you when you cry is to stop trolling.  Son, you are an adult.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




That's your opinion or religious view. I happen to be legally married and we just filed our first joint Federal tax return. WOW, what a difference!


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Did this answer your question Seawytch?  That question being essentially, "how can anyone have a legitimate objection to gay marriage, legally speaking".  Not only does society as a whole have an implied objection, they have a mandated objection.  See the details on the messiah Harvey Milk for why that legal obligation to object to gay marriage exists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your fantasies won't hold up in court.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:
			
		

> And unfortunately there are those who use the term &#8216;gay marriage&#8217; in the context of partisan demagoguery, propagating the lie that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will &#8216;change&#8217; marriage, when in fact nothing could be further from t he truth.



_Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder._

The Marriage Standard, resting upon no less an authority than nature itself, provides that marriage is the joining of ONE HUMAN MALE and ONE HUMAN FEMALE, establishing one sustainable body.  This representing analogically the coital 'joining' intrinsic to the natural design of the species for the purpose of procreation within a stable, sustainable 'family'.

Such is not possible for the Homosexual who joins with another of the same gender.

THEREFORE: Removing the standard to provide for the pretense of marriage for those WHOLLY UNSUITED FOR SUCH, OBVIOUSLY AND *INALTERABLY* _"CHANGE"S MARRIAGE_.  

With the "change" being paradoxical, wherein the Legitimacy to which the Homosexual desperately aspires, *EVAPORATES* _THE INSTANT_ that the standard is altered to accept those who are otherwise disqualified for marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_ continues his delusional fantasizing.  His only competitor in idiocy is Sil's "cult" theory.

If you two tried that at SCOTUS, they would turn you out in the alley.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Did this answer your question Seawytch?  That question being essentially, "how can anyone have a legitimate objection to gay marriage, legally speaking".  Not only does society as a whole have an implied objection, they have a mandated objection.  See the details on the messiah Harvey Milk for why that legal obligation to object to gay marriage exists.
> ...



That's funny.

The objective Reader should understand that what the above represents is less a statement of truth and more a quivering prayer to the god of vacuous pap.

Any court which holds to objective reasoning would be swayed by sound reason, in the face of the irrational contest presented by the opposition.

Where such will never hold up, is in the Kangaroo court, which were targeted for their historic lack of objectivity and Leftist political bent.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Did this answer your question Seawytch?  That question being essentially, "how can anyone have a legitimate objection to gay marriage, legally speaking".  Not only does society as a whole have an implied objection, they have a mandated objection.  See the details on the messiah Harvey Milk for why that legal obligation to object to gay marriage exists.
> ...



So the objective facts 1-8 are now "subjective fantasies" to Seawytch.  Somehow I'm making up the child protection law mandates, or Harvey Milk's sex life, or that gays and lesbians worship and apologize for that sex life?  I'm making up that the laws I spoke about were passed in California?  I'm making up that being married puts you at the top level of applicants to adopt orphans?

And how can you be sure, if I'm not making that stuff up, that it won't be considered as to the quesiton of "gay marriage" somehow being a constitutional "right"?  It disturbs me how certain you are that the welfare of adoptable orphaned children and the peculiarity of marriage's access to them will not be a topic at all for discussion in Utah vs Harvey Milk?

Do you know something that we don't know about the Justices?  Have some of them been bribed to ignore the welfare of adoptable children in the discussion of marriage?  Or?  Your explanation for your certainty is something I'd like to hear.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

The fantasises are Sil's "cult" theory and Where_'s "natural law" argument.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Huh.  Look at that, the Relativist offers up the *LEGAL* qualifier, noting, NOT the LIFELONG BOND of two individuals who have FULLY COMMITTED TO ONE ANOTHER, but the TAX FILING, as representing her primary concerns for her would-be "marriage", and, in so doing establishing "That", as a fact of the incontrovertible variety.  

And in a delightfully sweet, ironic twist, one which is FURTHER validated through her inability to contest such being limited to the attempt to distract from such, through feckless and fallacious appeals.

For all intents and purposes, she and her _most special friend_ are bound through simple incorporation, basically a modification of an LLC.  But instead of actually using the path of incorporation, the Homo-lobby advocating the normalization of sexual abnormality, DESPERATELY needed to take the pretense of "Marriage" path.  The thing is that HAD they opted to incorporate, instead of demanding Marriage, they could load up the car and drive, or fly or sail, anywhere in the world, where their 'union' would be recognized.  Because a corporation is a legally binding contract.  As it stands now, the moment our contributor and her 'significant other' cross their state line, they're right back to being little more than _roomies_.

So, we should WHY would the Homo-movement reject a secular and throughly binding, perfectly suited instrument, over something for which they are THOROUGHLY UNQUALIFIED FOR?  

They DESPERATELY NEED the legitimacy inherent in "Marriage" which is unobtainable as a practicing homosexual.   The proof of which is demonstrated in the desperation itself.  

Much as many homosexuals are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, they need Marriage to secure legitimacy.  But, being illegitimate, nothing they DO will _ever produce legitimacy_, until they turn from the illegitimacy, that defines them, which is their *deviant BEHAVIOR*.

  WOO HOO!! NATURE WINS ANOTHER ONE! 
You can't fight Mother Nature​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect.
> ...



Friend, the assault on Marriage is designed to destroy the institution, in finality.  

Please understand that the Left has been attacking marriage for decades.

They forced no-fault divorce, they undermined the role of the father, etc.  All this does is to finally dissolve from the conscience of the culture the idea of FAMILY!

Now to see how this will work, you need look no farther than the ghettos where the children who's fathers and mothers, having bought into collectivism, having abandoned their personal, right sustaining responsibilities and being for generations now, wholly dependent upon the State for their subsistence, are pulled into STREET GANGS as a means of acquiring the innate desire for the security and the bond of family. 

Now, what happens when Street gangs become a problem?  

Meaning: "WHO DO YA CALL?"  

Go ahead, take a stab at it: You call ___________________.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Now, IF those who we elect to defend our interests, were NOT operating against our interests, were not covertly advocating on behalf of the proponents of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle, THEY could have shut down the specious drivel of the Ideological Left a LOOooong time ago.  Just as I have done, here, in this discussion, today.

Understand what evidence you've to draw from on this thread.

You have a member of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality tacitly ADMIT that when "SCIENCE!" declares children capable of consenting to sexual relations with an adult, she will support that 'cause', and it shouldn't be underplayed that she also has no problem with the sexual abuse of animals, once someone over at "SCIENCE!" deems that 'ok'.

You have seen post after post, where the proponents of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality have rejected ANY sense of morality, with their only concern and complete focus being on what is "LEGAL".  With no regard for any other consideration.

This from a group whose political association and affirmation are decidedly upon the Left.  We know from our study of the Left, that the Ideology rests upon the addled, foolish notions of Relativism.

Which explains in stunning consistency, the reason for the Homo-Advocacy to eschew any sense of morality.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL to the concept: Truth, Trust, Morality and Justice.

Meaning that the people advocating or otherwise promoting debauchery and hedonism have no affiliation with truth.  They simply do not have any use for it, because their cause is more important than what happens to be true at a given moment.  

As a result, prudence suggest that they are unworthy of trust and given that, we can be sure that these people are immoral and their cause, unjust.


.

.

.




And THAT folks, is how THAT, _is done_.
​


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people. 

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Will you kindly stop insulting the African Americans by equating them with *YOU* !


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch was referring to the act of filling in pools so no one, meaning the black kids, could swim.

A Mormon presiding elder did that with the baptismal font in a small Mississippi town so blacks could not be baptized.

The demonization by the hetero-fascists merely follows the same pattern to exclude those they for whatever reason don't want to be around.

The 14th Amendment and the Constitution governs this issue, not religious cult theory not bastardized natural law theory.

Tis what tis.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 26, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Oh!  Are you the only Homosexual playing house, as a modified LLC?  

I had heard there were dozens of such.  SO MANY, that the culture needed to be slammed on its ear so we could strip the nuclear core of the nation of any form of standard. 

(Relativism <<  See how that works folks?  

She's not advocating for anyone but her self and her most special friend, who enjoyed a nice reduction in federal liabilities, because of they recently incorporated.)

*Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<*​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Thats only an insult in accordance with your ignorant, hateful, and subjective perception; in reality its no insult at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2014)

The opponents of marriage equality now, their arguments eviscerated, can only strike out to hurt others' feelings, or so they hope.

They are nothing more than red-eyed snarling feral children in the corner stamping their little cloven hooves.

Cult theory and natural law and the nonsense of "socialism" are no defense to the overturning of Amendment 3 in Utah.

Sotomayor continues to gather her majority, which I predict will be no less than six to three for upholding Judge Shelby's ruling and probably more likely will be seven to two.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 26, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > _I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And just how did all this exclusion of morals, decency, ethical conduct,, and the exclusion of religious values and it's views come about in our society now ? It has come about by pressures being placed in very precise ways, and upon strategic weak spots in the federal government. It was then all transferred to the activist riddled sold out federal judiciary, who in turn has picked this nation up, and has thrown it down upon it's head ever since.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.
> 
> We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!



I have many friends of the same gender that I'm bonded to.  Why in the world would I need to be married to them to bond with them?  Why would I want to unhinge the description of the word "marriage" to declare that people of my same gender I can like.  Sex is for the opposite gender only.  Hence the word "sex" and its origins.  Homosexuality degrades and renders suspect all same-gender bondings and friendships. 

In the old days you used to know that opposite gender meant sex.  All other relationships mean "not for sex".  ie: free from the stresses & strains of being hit on or hitting on someone.  They were "down time" with people close to you.  Now all that is thrown on the rocks for some delusional cult that feels it needs to unravel the fabric of reality in order to be rebellious sexually.  It's gotten to where people of the same gender are afraid to be close to each other because they'll be mistaken for "gay".  Or worse, nobody can trust that the same-gendered friend they have is authentically their friend.  There's more than just damage to marriage being done in this way.  It is destroying human culture and bonds of every nature; rendering them all suspect to "the dating game". 

There will come a time when people will sit up and say "what the hell were they thinking back then?"  But wisdom comes slowly, in driblets.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 27, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



What is being equated is the discrimination. That's the same...sometimes startlingly so. 

The following statements were made about interracial marriage or gay marriage. Can you tell which is which?

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nations survival in the long run.

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.
> ...



Renders suspect?  Yeah, okay. 

I'm not bonded to my partner like a friend, I'm bonded to her as a life partner. A spouse, a lover. We have been married in our hearts for almost two decades...now we just get to be married legally too. What a great country!


----------



## Bumberclyde (Jan 27, 2014)

Gay people in Utah should just fuck with their heads and get a legal document between the couple conferring to each other what a marriage license does, and call it a Marriage Contract. Then just sit back and watch them all cream their magic underwear.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 27, 2014)

When did homosexuals become a seperate race?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> When did homosexuals become a seperate race?



When did anyone say they were? The only anyone has done is compare the discrimination.

Can you tell which of these statements is about interracial marriage and which is about gay marriage?

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nations survival in the long run.

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 27, 2014)

> When did anyone say they were?



You implied it by comparing it to the black struggle. The reason interracial marriage was unconstitutional is because not all men were being treated equally in the eyes of the law. Since then all eligible men could marry any eligible women (defined by each state). That's equal. Pretending that homosexuality is in the same boat means that you want us to believe it too is a race. 


> When did anyone say they were? The only anyone has done is compare the discrimination.


It's meaningless to claim all forms of discrimination are the same, especially before establishing any discrimination to begin with. As I said earlier, anyone or group can use your argument.



> Can you tell which of these statements is about interracial marriage and which is about gay marriage?
> 
> 1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.
> 
> ...


Also anyone can pick selected quotes to try to bolster their argument for anything. I can use your technique to show how bigoted, hateful and wrong it is to deny three people from marriage. Or more. The fact that you think you are being fair and honest supports my opinion that the state needs to get out of the marriage business, we are too relativistic today, someone will always feel discriminated against.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So, humanity is to set aside 'discrimination' now.

Now that's HYSTERICAL.

Discrimination is a function of a sound being.  Absent discrimination, there is virtually no chance that the being, or its summed component of the beings culture, would survive.

But this does provide us with a first class opportunity to educate:

The above individual is a Liberal (socialist).

Socialism rests in Relativism.

Relativism rejects Objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL TO Truth, trust, morality and justice.

Meaning that without Objectivity, there is no truth.

Without truth, there is no Trust.

Without trust there is no Morality.

Without morality, there is no Justice.

Now what does Relativism look like?

Here's a clue: 'DISCRIMINATION, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF VIABILITY: IS WRONG!'


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 27, 2014)

Please stop assuming democrats don't disagree with gay marriage.  I'm a lifelong democrat.  I believe in and promote green energy.  I'm all about pro-choice/the horrible choice of lesser of two evils as long as termination is before 3 months.  Much more prefer Plan B and free birth control to not even have to have the conversation about abortion, eh?

That doesn't keep me from keeping my eyes open when it comes to gay marriage.  

I submit again as sound reasons to object:



> 1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children. And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 27, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > _I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state._
> ...



Wah!  Progress happens and you can't stop it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 27, 2014)

Sil, your political affiliation is immaterial to the inevitability of marriage equality.

_Politicians, too, are sensing a sea change. In March, *Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)* used the same word, telling NBC's Chuck Todd that although he opposed gay marriage, it was "inevitable" that Republican presidential contenders will someday back it._ Poll: Gay Marriage Viewed As 'Inevitable' By Most Americans


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 27, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, your political affiliation is immaterial to the inevitability of marriage equality.



That's not what the US Supreme Court said in DOMA.  They said that state's "unquestioned authority" in determining whether or not gay marriage was legal within its boundaries is of "central relevance" to the DOMA Decision.  They said that a broad consensus within a state's boundaries is the right and proper way this determination should be made in accordance with the way "the Framers of the Constutition intended" [those are direct quotes].  That's Justice code for saying "such and such is upheld constituitonally".  And, they also said in Windsor/DOMA that this affirmation of a state's right and proper way of defining marriage is retroactive to the founding of the nation.

So, as it happens, my political affiliation or leanings on this particular question are of "central relevance" to the open and unanswered question as to the "inevitability" of gay marriage.

Most relevant to that ongoing consensus discussion is what's in my signature and legal mandates to protect adoptable orphans.  You can't have a cult that worships old men sodomizing orphaned teen boys while officiating as their "father figure", having top-tier access to adopt orphans as one of the perks of legal marriage, now can you?  Also, you cannot force christians, mormons or muslims to commit the mortal sin [Bible, Jude 1, Romans 1...Koran, Poets 26] of enabling a homosexual culture and be damned to hell for eternity for it, now can you?

Aside:  Seawytch, I've been meaning to ask you, or any other gay advocate here how you feel about outreach to youth in the currently identified hetero population to "come out gay" or explore their "bi-curious" urgings?  A simple answer or a complex one: either one will do.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> > When did anyone say they were?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Uh huh...only TWO were about "the gays". Which ones?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 27, 2014)

Silohuette's last post above is feeble and ranting.  We were talking about party affiliation, she sliced my post to get it out of context (reported), and then wants to talk about states' rights.

The rulings last year made it clear that states may not abridge citizens' civil liberties.  The court also made it clear that it is not following the Bible and that it is not following natural law.

End of story.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Uh huh...only TWO were about "the gays". Which ones?


You couldn't understand my point.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh...only TWO were about "the gays". Which ones?
> ...




Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 27, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?



The marriage being contested is the religious sacrament that belongs in church.

if liberals/gays are for "separation of church and state"
then why are they imposing a private spiritual ceremony on govt jurisdiction?

The Christians do this who DO NOT believe in separating church and state.
What is the liberal excuse for pushing this issue on govt policy
and then screaming 'separation of church and state' when they oppose such imposition?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 27, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silohuette's last post above is feeble and ranting.  We were talking about party affiliation, she sliced my post to get it out of context (reported), and then wants to talk about states' rights.
> 
> The rulings last year made it clear that states may not abridge citizens' civil liberties.  The court also made it clear that it is not following the Bible and that it is not following natural law.
> 
> End of story.



The only way I see that "states don't abridge citizens' civil liberties" is to either
A. stay out of marriage if the state citizens don't agree 100% religiously
B. agree to uphold whatever policy ALL citizens of that state agree to compromise on
Otherwise, if ALL citizens do NOT fully agree, then the state is in fact imposing
the religious views of one group over the other and discriminating by establishing 
a religiously biased policy against the beliefs of dissenting believers of other views.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Jan 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sil, your political affiliation is immaterial to the inevitability of marriage equality.
> ...



So the Supreme Court Justices are homophobes, what else is new?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.


...which means that you have no clue what I said. The "feel" is all yours.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.



I'm sure the cult of Warren Jeffs and people who think Jerry Sandusky were wronged feel exactly the same way you do Seawytch.  

Look at your messiah: Harvey Milk.  Read my signature.  THINK about how people who don't belong to your religion feel about your faithful flock.  Is it bigotry or something else?  Common sense maybe?  Or perhaps a mandate to protect children from harm upon suspicion of that harm; a mandate that if you fail to live up to it, you can be prosecuted...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.
> ...




I have raised three biological kids and put in some nightmare years in with an adopted one.

In that time, and with my grand children, my policy is that where my children are concerned, I am the supreme authority.  I do not accept any government authority where my kids are concerned.  

I made it clear to everyone, without exception to their affiliation, family, friend, employee or outer associations of same: Screw with my kids and you deal with me.  And a perspective of me that most never knew. 

There'd be no frantic calls to the Po-po, no crisis management with counselors.  Just me, a hammer, chainsaw, shower curtain and a Bar-BQ.  No bullshit, no cryin', no mercy.

Don't care who ya are, who ya were.  Judgment is immediate and final.

I see 'stories' of kids being abused and I wonder, 'where in the HELL is their Father?".

If it was their Father, where in the hell is HIS FATHER?  

Then, one day it occurred to me.  That the Feminist Left has been at war with Fathers for 40 years.  

And I suddenly realized: WHY!

Does that make me an extremist?  

LOL!  You bet your ass it does.  And most who read this, have no idea what that even means.  They 'feel' they do, but they're clueless.

IF they HAD a clue.  They'd never allow themselves to even THINK of children and sex.  'Cause in my circles, I'M THE SOFTY!  And we're E V E R Y W H E R E ! ! !


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I understand fine. I understand that discrimination is discrimination no matter how justified the bigoted feel at the time.
> ...



What tickles me, is that she doesn't have the slightest clue that _she is a *bigot*_. 

Imagine bigotry SO PROFOUND, that your opinion is superior to a thousand years of hard fought, human experience.   

Now THAT is a bigot!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 27, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silohuette's last post above is feeble and ranting.  We were talking about party affiliation, she sliced my post to get it out of context (reported), and then wants to talk about states' rights.
> ...



Are you talking about the State Sponsored religious view, that any mention of God, his only begotten Son and the natural, objective principles that sustain a viable individual and the sum of individuals known as a culture?

'Cause last time I checked, the US Constitution provides stark limitations on the power of government, providing that one can practice their religion anywhere, with absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS being provided UPON THE INDIVIDUAL.  

Anything gettin' through here?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



[obligatory offensive remark]
So...were you the models for your avatar? 
[/obligatory offensive remark]

*runs* 

Seriously...I like the avatar, and congratulations. 

18 years for me this March.   Geez...has it really been that long?!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 27, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Are you on drugs?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 27, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Translation: you're a psycho and need to be locked up forever.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 28, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Sounds like a man protective over his *children* or all *children* in general, so is that considered psycho & dangerous these days or is it still the right way to be ? If not the right way to be, then my how the times do change on some things. Are these times creating more and more unstable people ? Could very well be the case. 

I mean look around at what is happening these days, then ask oneself why are things so upside down anymore, and this as according to many who think in these ways ? These attitudes in which he has expressed should not be ignored, but instead should be respected as a space in which he guards in his mind and in his thoughts. They more than likely are the attitudes of many still, so it's probably best to take heed wouldn't you agree ?  Hmmm, or maybe you think that all whom think like this should be locked up, and if so why, and is that even possible ? No it isn't.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



15 years ago I could have modeled for the avatar...5 babies later, not so much 

Congrats yourself. The time flies doesn't it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That Constitution, as  you describe it, does not exist.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Hey!  Now there's a snappy and oh SO original deflection.  

OH!  Now claim that I fear myself, you know: do the one where you assert that I contest the normalization of sexual abnormality because I internally fear that I too crave sexual gratification through sexual congress with those of my own gender, *because*, _APPARENTLY_, *only THAT would cause someone to not recognize that which is abnormal* *as normal.*

I LOVE that one.   

You people really are all over this stuff, you've clearly given all of this a LOT of thought.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Of course I'm a psycho.  I must be, because I have absolutely no tolerance for people who assault the innocence of a child. 

Do ya see how it works folks?

They have a right to murder their children, so it naturally follows that they have a right to pursue children for sexual gratification.

That it's YOUR CHILDREN, is irrelevant.  THEY are the center of the universe and their needs come first.

And anyone who disagrees and will shut them DOWN the instant that word comes that they've done so to the 'shutter-downers' children, is therefore, relatively speaking, A PSYCHO!

(If that doesn't quite make sense to you, please consider the 'relativist' point of view.  Wherein popular culture determines normality, through legality.  Therefore, those who do not adhere to popular decree, are mentally disturbed.

I know, I know,* that's crazy*.  I'm just tryin' to explain the perspective of the addle minded fools who adhere to relativism.

This is why the qualify EVERYTHING in terms of LEGAL and Legally.  In their mind they SIMULTANEOUSLY 'feel' that what IS Legal is MORALLY sound and what WAS LEGAL was not.

Yes, they're insane.  But that's only in reality and has NOTHING to do with the perspective of the militant homo-cult OKA: the Socialist, who, FTR>> Are presently working to LEGALIZE adult/child sexual relations.)


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> 15 years ago I could have modeled for the avatar...5 babies later, not so much
> 
> Congrats yourself. The time flies doesn't it?



Thank goodness there was someone around to provide the sperm for those 5 babies.  I guess men are good for something after all.  Did they insert something into you, did you use a turkey baster, or just a friend?  I'm not being grotesque or irreverent.  I'm curious actually.  I hear of lesbians having babies and I really wonder how most of them do it.  Not all of them have the money to go to fertility clinics.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Since Where_ and Sil know the SCOTUS most likely will rule against their beliefs, they know resort to _ad hom _and meanness, identifiers of narcissistic personalities who despise all those other people who see them differently.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Since Where_ and Sil know the SCOTUS most likely will rule against their beliefs, they know resort to _ad hom _and meanness, identifiers of narcissistic personalities who despise all those other people who see them differently.



Say what bro?

I was asking Seawytch how, since she is a lesbian by her own admission here, she managed to have 5 babies.  Her girlfriend didn't put them there.  That's completely fair game.  I know some lesbians who just get a man from a bar or a friend or whoever to inseminate one or both of them to get their children.  Others who have more money go to fertility clinics and thumb through stud information there.  I'm a livestock owner, remember?  We do this stuff too.  

Calling people narcissists who are just asking legitimate questions is pretty low brow.  And no, if I was on truth serum right now, I'd admit to you that I most likely believe that SCOTUS will rule in favor of children and the people of Utah to regulate marriage within their own boundaries when it comes to the cult of LGBT.  I've read DOMA.  If you have read DOMA/Windsor also, the case cited to obtain the stay on gay marriage in Utah, you know that it has teeth.  You know that because you've alluded as how you are an attorney.

So you are being mean and intellectually dishonest in the quote above.  How ironic you would accuse me of that instead.

Seawytch, did you use a fertility clinic or just a friend to get pregnant.  We do it both ways on the ranch here.  We use a stud if we have one handy here or in the neighborhood.  Or we use artificial insemination to get our girls pregnant.


----------



## Barb (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Since Where_ and Sil know the SCOTUS most likely will rule against their beliefs, they know resort to _ad hom _and meanness, identifiers of narcissistic personalities who despise all those other people who see them differently.
> ...



Mean?!  Are you fucking kidding? 

*1) the word "admit" alludes to guilt. *

*2) implying by comparison to your livestock that a lesbian is less than human is reprehensible. Would you compare the processes that hetro females who cannot get pregnant with their hetro partners go through to become pregnant to your livestock? The fuck you would. *

*Only you and your fellow travelers call the LBGT community and the family and friends who support their efforts to equal protection under our laws a "cult." *

Intellectually dishonest?!

Your every post on this thread has been such


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > 15 years ago I could have modeled for the avatar...5 babies later, not so much
> ...




Well...let's see...first two at home with a syringe using sperm from the same gay male donor, a close friend. The last two pregnancies, resulting in three babies, was a surrogacy with donated eggs. A gay male couple fathered the children. I bore twins that had two different fathers. Cool, huh? Science and technology is amazing. 

Soon, we may not need the sperm.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20110202

As to how many? 1/4th of couples according to the census.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=13850332


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Since Where_ and Sil know the SCOTUS most likely will rule against their beliefs, they know resort to _ad hom _and meanness, identifiers of narcissistic personalities who despise all those other people who see them differently.
> ...



The very act of 'calling' someone a narcissist, is usually employed by the Narcissist.  Just as the bigot is most often found touting that his opposition is guilty of bigotry.

This is simply a function of nature and the law therein, which holds that wherever you find a socialist accusing someone of a crime, you can rests assured that they're not only guilty of that crime, but that they're in process of committing it, even as they advance the accusation.

This stems from the principle that people generally judge others based upon their own perspective and experiences.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Barb said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So, humanity is defined by being human?

Interesting.  

Barb let's you and I discuss this.  Now I've found that some people of a particular intellectual threshold, tend to define things with which they claim some kinship in minimal terms.  This makes sustaining membership, easier.  Oddly enough, those people tend to associate themselves with a particular political bent, which provides for minimal effort, in pretty much everything.

Let me ask ya Barb, what defines the threshold which would establish a human being as sound and otherwise 'whole'? 

I'd like to know, if you feel that there exist a 'standard', which would represent a whole human?  Thus in your mind, is it even possible for there to exist an example of the species which could reasonably be categorized as sub-standard, thus sub-human?

Take your time.  Let the blood run back into your head and please, resist your natural instinct to burst with an emotional diatribe that assesses your opposition as sub-human.  Try to find some means to answer the question objectively and, therefore: HONESTLY.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Well...let's see...first two at home with a syringe using sperm from the same gay male donor, a close friend. The last two pregnancies, resulting in three babies, was a surrogacy with donated eggs. A gay male couple fathered the children. I bore twins that had two different fathers. Cool, huh? Science and technology is amazing.
> 
> Soon, we may not need the sperm.



So no hetero men were used for the donations.  Just curious as to why that was?  ie: with the prevalence of HIV in the gay male population, were'n't you worried about choosing a man to father your child who was least likely to carry that virus?

Are any of your children boys?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Well...let's see...first two at home with a syringe using sperm from the same gay male donor, a close friend. The last two pregnancies, resulting in three babies, was a surrogacy with donated eggs. A gay male couple fathered the children. I bore twins that had two different fathers. Cool, huh? Science and technology is amazing.
> ...




Yes, all gay. The only thing straight were the surrogate eggs.  Nope, wasn't worried. We were all tested prior to all procedures for all STDs. Standard practice. 

Yes, I have one boy and they have one boy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well, that's as FABULOUS an example of amoral and unsustainable relativist freakiocity as I've encountered in over a half century of experience.  

WOW!


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

Women will never get rid of men. Who would they blame everything on?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Women will never get rid of men. Who would they blame everything on?



*  Thank you *​


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



A couple of questions then, if I may.  Are you aware that there is still a 6 month period where HIV can be in a person's body but tests show up negative?  Also, are the boys straight or gay?  Did you mean to say that one of the boys you bore you gave to the gay male couple?  Was that the deal you struck with them in exchange for the semen?  Please bear in mind like I said, we do similar things on the farm.  I would hope that people here would be grown up enough to see this isn't a play on morality but one of the nuts and bolts of how gay people will bear children.  I would think it would be particularly hard for gay men to have them!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Now Barb, just to help you through this, I am going to offer this soundly reasoned hypothesis:  

Nature established the biological >Standard< in the innate design of the species.  

This, reason suggests, is a function of providing for the biological imperative to propagate, thus to provide for the survival of the species through sustainable procreation.  

Meaning that Skins pursue Shirts and, Outies merge with Innies.  

Now, given that standard, we can be sure that where an example deviates from that standard, that the deviancy will either exceed the performance of the standard, or fail to rise to the performance of the standard.  

So we've two choices here, as I see it and you're welcome to disagree, but the question now comes: Does homosexuality exceed the biological standard, or does it fail to rise to this natural qualifying threshold?

*What say you, Barb?*​


----------



## Barb (Jan 28, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...





> Thus in your mind, is it even possible for there to exist an example of the species which could reasonably be categorized as sub-standard, thus sub-human?



No. While the temptation is great in this thread to identify you an Sil as sub-human, you are both fully human, if not humane or any example I would hope my progeny would us as an example.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Barb said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Well, looky there.  A modicum of objectivity and PRESTO, your political opposition qualifies as wholly human!  That's mighty white of ya.

Now let's push ourselves, shall we?  

And return to the queries at issue.  FOCUS Barb and let's see if we can find some ground on which to agree!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

The incessant narcissistic display of meanness by Sil and Where_ will continue right to the day when SCOTUS refuses to hear Utah's appeal.

Neither "cult" or natural law defenses will even be permitted by the Circuit Court much less SCOTUS.

These two boobs know it is over, so all they can do is emit a fury that signifies nothing.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The incessant narcissistic display of meanness by Sil and Where_ will continue right to the day when SCOTUS refuses to hear Utah's appeal.
> 
> Neither "cult" or natural law defenses will even be permitted by the Circuit Court much less SCOTUS.
> 
> These two boobs know it is over, so all they can do is emit a fury that signifies nothing.



So in your interpretation, to have a differing opinion on a very controversial topic, complete with back and forth exchange, probing questions and the like, renders one a "narcissist" who is "mean"?

I'm thinking maybe Hitler had a peculiarly offensive label he used to put on people who disagreed heatedly and intrepidly that jews shouldn't be sent to the gas chambers.  Is absence of a debate on this topic your end-game Jake?  By any means necessary to get there?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

In case this discussion is in danger of getting buried under Jake's ad hominem distraction...



> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Sil writes ironically, "In case this discussion is in danger of getting buried under Jake's ad hominem distraction...".  Sil gives herself away in this classic self transference of behavior by a narcissist.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Thank you for your concern, but all parties involved were and remain HIV negative. 

I was a surrogate for a gay male couple. Donated eggs, their sperm, my womb three kids for them. 

The surrogate fathers are not the father of my children.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Thank you for your concern, but all parties involved were and remain HIV negative.
> 
> I was a surrogate for a gay male couple. Donated eggs, their sperm, my womb three kids for them.
> 
> The surrogate fathers are not the father of my children.


Honestly, all that makes gay marriage look worse. Children shouldn't be bred like lab rats.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your concern, but all parties involved were and remain HIV negative.
> ...




Tell that to the thousands and thousands of straight couples using AI and IVF...including Tagg Romney.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Point of order: surrogate motherhood is beyond the OP.  But since it was introduced, hats off to Seawytch and all surrogate birth mothers.  Good on you.

The OP follows Shelby's action in Utah, and the appellate process of that action.

Among the several arguments for proponents of Amendment 3 have included Jacksonian democratic will, Natural Law, and LGBT Cult Theory.  The only one historically that would have much creditability would be Jacksonian popular will.  

However, the 14th Amendment put an end to that forever: the majority may not deny the minority's civil rights.

The difference that makes is simply proved.  Compare our democratic process with that of Iran and Gaza.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 28, 2014)

why don't you try and become a mod jake.  all you do is run around and try to moderate threads and people's posts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Troll on, Yurtle, troll on.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Tell that to the thousands and thousands of straight couples using AI and IVF...including Tagg Romney.


Most straight couples don't need it except for an extreme case and they usually don't know the father or become surrogates. Since it's the only way for gays it isn't exactly equal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Tell that to the thousands and thousands of straight couples using AI and IVF...including Tagg Romney.
> ...



Yeah, it is.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Troll on, Yurtle, troll on.



mod on jake, mod on


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Tell that to the thousands and thousands of straight couples using AI and IVF...including Tagg Romney.
> ...




No, it's not the only way it's just one way. Fact: more straight couples use IVF than gay ones.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your concern, but all parties involved were and remain HIV negative.
> ...



Well of course not.  But just as the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is an illegitimate movement, the use of surrogacy to provide children to be raised by the Homosexual lobby is likewise, illegitimate.  

This being so, as such is little more than a means to recruit more advocates, as they drive the culture toward accepting sexual abnormality as sexual normality, thus pushing the culture toward its doom.

To an absolute certainty, most of those children will be sexually abused, as it is the nature of the sexually abnormal to eschew cultural taboos against such and even in this very thread, we have seen one of our in-house advocate, herself a professed surrogate, providing children to the sexually abnormal, promote other abnormalities, wherein She stated in no uncertain terms, that where she felt that a child, or chicken were capable of consenting and had so consented to sexual a relationship with an adult, she would readily accept such.

So, this discussion, as most do, is providing us with a wonderful insight into the depths of the abyss known as "The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality" and it is NOT PRETTY.

On a side note:

Barb, sweety, please read and response to the queries I provided for your consideration.

Inquiring minds wanna know: "How's Barb feelin' abot this?"


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Of course they do.  But the sexually normal represent roughly 97% of the population of the planet, so that serves reason.  But hey, representing the respective genders, the sexually normal are best suited for the raising of children. In contrast to the sexually abnormal, who are simply unqualified to so much as baby-sit.  Leaving a child with a known sexual deviant is nothing short of abuse and rates no less the same level of responsibility FOR THE LOOMING ASSAULT, as the offender themselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Leaving a child with a known deviant, hetero or homo, is indeed child abuse.

We have an aunt and her grown son, both heterosexual, who we made sure the children were never around.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> To an absolute certainty, most of those children will be sexually abused, as it is the nature of the sexually abnormal to eschew cultural taboos against such and even in this very thread, we have seen one of our in-house advocate, herself a professed surrogate, providing children to the sexually abnormal, promote other abnormalities, wherein She stated in no uncertain terms, that where she felt that a child, or chicken were capable of consenting and had so consented to sexual a relationship with an adult, she would readily accept such.




You lying sack of nasty shit. I said no such thing. I said if cognizant function is found in ADULT chickens and pigs giving them the ability to consent, YOU could fuck them. I did not apply your silly what if to children, you did.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Thank you for your concern, but all parties involved were and remain HIV negative.
> 
> I was a surrogate for a gay male couple. Donated eggs, their sperm, my womb three kids for them.
> 
> The surrogate fathers are not the father of my children.



OK.  Hope you still get checked regularly for HIV just in case.  At least more than six months past your last exposure to gay sperm or fetuses from it.  

If people could just butt out for a moment I'd still like to ask about your boys.  Are they gay or straight?  And I ask knowing they are anonymous and you are anonymous and that you will stay that way.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Leaving a child with a known deviant, hetero or homo, is indeed child abuse.
> 
> We have an aunt and her grown son, both heterosexual, who we made sure the children were never around.



I get that.  One way to be sure if a family member was not to be trusted around your children would be if they had elevated as a cult value, the sexuality of one Harvey Milk as their icon.  That right there, yeah, don't leave the kids at that home for sure!


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 28, 2014)

Science can mislead us, a good book on the subject is WRONG by David H. Freedman, full title below with a review 

Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, ... consultants, health officials and more 

"Mind-bending...[A] compelling case that the majority of people frequently recognized as experts...base their findings on flawed information more often than not....readers of Freedman's evidence might mitigate their unwarranted trust in the "experts" who so often offer sound bites on the morning television news-entertainment programs as well as the "experts" promoted by Oprah, Dr. Phil and others of that ilk." (St. Louis Post-Dispatch Steve Weinberg )


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Leaving a child with a known deviant, hetero or homo, is indeed child abuse.
> ...



You are mentally crumbling, Sil: that made no sense.  Try again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Science can mislead us, a good book on the subject is WRONG by David H. Freedman, full title below with a review
> 
> Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, ... consultants, health officials and more
> 
> "Mind-bending...[A] compelling case that the majority of people frequently recognized as experts...base their findings on flawed information more often than not....readers of Freedman's evidence might mitigate their unwarranted trust in the "experts" who so often offer sound bites on the morning television news-entertainment programs as well as the "experts" promoted by Oprah, Dr. Phil and others of that ilk." (St. Louis Post-Dispatch Steve Weinberg )



Oh, a help book, like homeopathy for the uneducated, so the latter can be in charge of their own diagnoses.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Leaving a child with a known deviant, hetero or homo, is indeed child abuse.
> ...



Clearly! 

What some people don't seem to understand, is that THE SAME people that 'normalized Homosexuality' deviancy, are busy working up a rationalization to do the same for those deviants who prefer their sex with the young'nes. 

Notice that where the question comes up, inquiries with our 'OH SO REASONABLE', moderate-homos, regarding their position on sexual relationships between adults and children, they can't quite find the words that would help us better understand their PRINCIPLED, MORALLY SOUND and wholly IMPLIED REJECTION of the sexual pursuit of children.

There's a reason for that.  Which we'll get to here, in fairly short order.  

We're just waiting for a few more pieces of the puzzle to be set on the table.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, a help book, like homeopathy for the uneducated, so the latter can be in charge of their own diagnoses.



Kind of like the American Psychological Association being taken over by a gay cabal in the 1970s to present.  Where the gays in control decades ago merely dispensed with the ruling scientific principle, the "Leona Tyler' principle that mandated scientific data back up any stance the APA takes publicly on anything.  They did so without even a board meeting or an up or down vote.  The Principle just vanished from the books and can't even be found now in APA archives.  The gays there "disappeared" it.

Now the gay-ruled/influenced APA unilaterally and unquestioningly states that anything gay or queer is perfectly normal [how's that for an oxymoron?].  Even transgender children are given the stamp of approval to prepare for amputationg healthy organs and body parts to play-act the opposite gender.  Yep.  No problems there at all.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, a help book, like homeopathy for the uneducated, so the latter can be in charge of their own diagnoses.
> ...



Oh the Homosexual affiliation with the would-be discipline of human sexuality began 50 years prior to the 70s.

Alfred Kinsey, (Kinsey Institute) was a leading Eugenicist, and a homosexual, who 'studied' human sexuality.  He focused his 'studies' on the sexuality of children.

The Kinsey Institute is largely responsible for the SCIENCE! which is leading the APA toward the understanding that some children may actually benefit from adult/child sexual relations.

It's Evil on an unimaginable scale.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Wow.  I did not know that.  Thanks for sharing.  It's nice to know where things start and where they're heading.  Especially when those things are becoming a matter of law...


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


This post is unbelievable for many I think really, otherwise their thinking your kidding me right ? That is the most twisted up bunch of mess I think I have ever heard of.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > To an absolute certainty, most of those children will be sexually abused, as it is the nature of the sexually abnormal to eschew cultural taboos against such and even in this very thread, we have seen one of our in-house advocate, herself a professed surrogate, providing children to the sexually abnormal, promote other abnormalities, wherein She stated in no uncertain terms, that where she felt that a child, or chicken were capable of consenting and had so consented to sexual a relationship with an adult, she would readily accept such.
> ...



So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar.  

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper it published some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' was refuted by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world.  The APA is further pushing to establish Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality.

What's more the powers that be in the Education profession are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior.  This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.  

It become clear that the push is to provide children with the means to make informed decisions in matters of sexuality.

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks: 

*IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?*​
If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.
*
The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!*​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Now for those who want to get an idea of how bad it is, please take a read at this: 

http://theshepherdofpsychology.com/Content/Spring Creek/Fall 2010/Hum Sex/Articles/pedophila.pdf


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

So could we have our in-house homos please respond to the standing query?

It'd really help move the conversation along.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Wow... Just listen to those crickets.  They are SOME KINDA LOUD tonight!

Now we can't say that the silence from the homo-lobby is Conclusive PROOF that they're advocating for the means to pursue children for sexual gratification, but we can say conclusively that their silence is their only means of AVOIDING CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

And it all works out the same, now doesn't it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Just to keep the pressure on.  I am reposting this for the third time:



Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > To an absolute certainty, most of those children will be sexually abused, as it is the nature of the sexually abnormal to eschew cultural taboos against such and even in this very thread, we have seen one of our in-house advocate, herself a professed surrogate, providing children to the sexually abnormal, promote other abnormalities, wherein She stated in no uncertain terms, that where she felt that a child, or chicken were capable of consenting and had so consented to sexual a relationship with an adult, she would readily accept such.
> ...



Nasty Shit?  Is there a non-nasty variant of feces, with which I am unaware?  

Huh...  So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar, just like your exquisite little divers.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper published by the APA some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' came under a PHALANX of public criticism, congress censured it and the research was soundly discredited by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world.  

But that didn't stop them, as the APA and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is STILL pushing hard to establish Pedophilia is a 'sexual orientation', as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality, again all toward making it "LEGAL".

Part and parcel of the effort is found in the Education profession wherein they are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior.  This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.  

It becomes clear that 'the push' is international, wicked and designed to provide children with the means to make 'informed decisions' in matters of sexuality, so that such will be rationalized as children being 'cognizant' of the processes and consequences of sexuality, thus making them capable of making 'informed consent for sexual relationships with adults', AGAIN so as to provide the means to* MAKE ADULT/CHILD SEX: "LEGAL".*

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks: 

*IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?*​
If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.
*
The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!*​


----------



## MaryL (Jan 28, 2014)

Just when I thought I knew what an oxymoron was, they came up with "GAY MARRIAGE". Go figure it would be an issue  debated by the supreme court, no less. This seems like a parody nobody would take seriously years ago. But here we are now. This isn't a victory for human the spirit, it's a sad joke.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



And the lies of the losers on the psychotic far right continue.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Just when I thought I knew what an oxymoron was, they came up with "GAY MARRIAGE". Go figure it would be an issue  debated by the supreme court, no less. This seems like a parody nobody would take seriously years ago. But here we are now. This isn't a victory for human the spirit, it's a sad joke.



Just very well said!  Thank you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2014)

The sad joke is the sociopathic mentality of Where_.

Since you know your side is going to lose, you are going to be as vicious as you can.  That's OK, viciousness up to a limit is allowed in the Rules.  I bet you will cross the line, though.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Amazing, isn't it?

Let me just set this out there:  And each reader can answer for themselves, to themselves.  But didn't ya get the impression that the opposition was trying REALLY HARD to convey that she was VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEX, but for some reason, just never got around to saying it outright?  

What kind of person would so much as hesitate to set that straight out on the table, and do so unapologetically, without the slightest sense of doubt?  Wouldn't that require one twisted sister?

I mean, she's professed to providing children to people who are known to be prone toward sexual deviancy.  And not just a little prone, these are people who self-identify as 'homosexuals'.  And have taken overt steps to openly practice abnormal sexual behavior.

Yet, she's clearly incapable of stating in specific terms her rejection of sexual abnormality, as it pertains to the pursuit of children for sexual purposes.  And you can rest assured that she's read the thread and the relevant query.  

So we're left to ask: "What kind of person would produce children so that they could be subjected to, well, you know: *EVIL!*

Now, to be fair, she knows that she can't answer, because in doing so she will undermine her own rationalizations that justify her own behavior.  

Which on the surface, might explain her hesitation, rendering such at least understandable, but, ask yourself, if you or anyone you know, would forfeit the safety of *a* child's innocence to help you feel better about your particular kink(s), let alone 5 of 'em.  *That is some WICKED MESS right there.*

And for that individual who just had a flash of 'yes I would' there and, it didn't make you sick to your stomach in a rush of pitiful self awareness, leaving you bounding to your knees to instinctively beg forgiveness and for the strength to overcome and otherwise turn from your dark and pathetic, malfunctioning instinct.  You're one sick fuck and are decidedly: THE PROBLEM.  

At some point its up to you who you are.  Stop being such a loser and *decide* to be a whole human being and, JUST DO THE RIGHT THING, for a change.

The rest of you, well you got it already.  Congrats.  And good luck on keeping your shit together, in this basswackwards and up fucked world.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your concern, but all parties involved were and remain HIV negative.
> ...




I have no need to be tested. The last babies, the twins were born in 2006, and we're all fine, thanks. 

My son just turned 14 and is currently only interested in video games, skateboards and guns...but I'm sure the girls are just around the corner. My daughter is 12 and has a crush on the star of the Hunger Games and two boys in her class. Our kids (as in the children of gays) are no different than yours and are at no disadvantage to yours.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




I was speaking only of adult chickens and pigs, not children. Knock off the bullshit if you wish  to continue to engage.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Just when I thought I knew what an oxymoron was, they came up with "GAY MARRIAGE". Go figure it would be an issue  debated by the supreme court, no less. This seems like a parody nobody would take seriously years ago. But here we are now. This isn't a victory for human the spirit, it's a sad joke.




_This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

"If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it was the sacred institution of marriage [which] was about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might produce change in all phases of domestic life."_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



WOW!

I guess that is all any objective observer needs to know about where about where the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality stands.  Their intention is to "LEGALIZE" the sexual pursuit of children.

Does anyone need anything else?


----------



## Barb (Jan 28, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



The world's procreation passed "sustainable" levels before I was born. 
There is plenty of evidence in nature to suggest that your idea of an ideal "standard" is subjective, at best. 
Your question within those "choices," framed by at least one faulty premise, are therefore illegitimate.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 28, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




Fuck off, shit for brains. Ignore on.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well, I guess that settles that.

FTR: It should be noted that I stated at the outset that the sexually abnormal are a danger to children.  And right here in our OWN little 'i-Community' we have a professed homosexual, who can't bring herself to DENOUNCE THE SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!


----------



## Barb (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And yet, you did just "make this shit up."


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Jan 29, 2014)

Jesus Christ. I didn't expect my thread to have lasted this long. Carry on!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Barb, there's the record, as it occurred what exactly did I make up?


----------



## Barb (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



My telling you to go take a flying fuck at a duck is not an act of advocating man / waterfowl relations, any more than what you made of Skye's sarcastic reply to you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Barb said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



So true.  And may I just add, spoken as only a lady of your station could express it.



Barb said:


> any more than what you made of Skye's sarcastic reply to you.



Oh!  Now who's making things up.  

Folks, what Barb is desperately trying to accomplish here is to revise the record, wherein The Witch was being sarcastic.  As a means to avoid answering a direct and otherwise very simple question, which would be readily answered by any reasonable, objective person possessing a sound sense of morality and mind.

When in truth, the sarcasm was clearly offered purely as a deflective means to avoid the question.

It's all part and parcel of the Relativist Left and their ludicrous Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, a hold over from the long since discredited progressive farce of Eugenics.

The uninitiated will find that "Eugenics" brought the word Dr. Joseph Mengele, of the German Medical Corps, who carved up live children in grotesque ways, to observe their reactions.  It was all in the name of "SCIENCE!", of course.

Much as The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the progressive U.S. Public Health Service, as a means to 'observe' what would happen  when they repeatedly injected syphilis into innocent and otherwise people, who trusted them, as doctors.

Much the same as Progressives have demanded the RIGHT to take the lives of 55 million pre-born children, the most innocent of human life, for whom they are directly responsible for conceiving, through their willful and waton behavior, this resting in that human life representing an inconvenience to them.

Much as the public currently trusts educators, in public schools, who are going about 'educating' prepubescent adolescents about human sexuality.  Crimes against humanity which  history will show to be among the most egregious in the history of the species.

Now how do otherwise seemingly reasonable people rationalize this sort of insanity?

They're socialist. 

Socialism rests in Relativism.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL to truth, trust, morality and justice.

No truth, no trust.

No trust, no morality.

No Morality, no Justice.

*Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<*​


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Trust me Barb, ignore is your friend. He's not interested in debate, just trolling.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The incessant narcissistic display of meanness by Sil and Where_ will continue right to the day when SCOTUS refuses to hear Utah's appeal.
> ...



Proves my point: called on for your questionable behavior and you invoke Hitler. 

Proponents of universal marriage want to put folks in execution chambers?

You are very disturbed emotionally.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

We are all "VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEX" by homosexual and heterosexual adults.

Any accusations or implications that violate Board policies will be immediately reported.

Let's evaluate the level of screaming abuse that notice gets.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 29, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Proves my point: called on for your questionable behavior and you invoke Hitler.
> 
> Proponents of universal marriage want to put folks in execution chambers?
> 
> You are very disturbed emotionally.



Another strawman.  Wow, you must really be threatened by something I'm talking about Jake.

As you know, the comparison was to shutting down free speech in objection to an objectionable thing.  

Children, as you even said yourself, should not be around people who are suspect to abuse them.  Like your aunt for instance, like you said.  You have SOME reason for not wanting to leave your kids alone with her.  And I will assume it's a good one.  You have heard something or know something about her value system or what she has done that makes you believe that your children will come to physical or psychological harm in her presence.  And therefore, your protective instincts kicked in, and you do whatever it takes to keep them from going to her house to be with her without other supervisorial adults around.

Likewise, we as a society have SOME reasons [see my signature] for not wanting to leave our orphaned kids alone with this LGBT cult.  And they are good reasons.  We have heard something or know something [see my signature] about their value system or what they have done that makes us believe that our orphans will come to physical or psychological harm in their presence.  And therefore, our protective instincts [and a mandate by law] kicks in, and we do whatever it takes to keep them from going to their homes to be with them without other supervisorial adults around.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Proves my point: called on for your questionable behavior and you invoke Hitler.
> ...


Notice how Jake is trying so hard to stop the debate here, and this by constantly making threats that he will report this and how he will report that ? He is wanting a slip so bad that it isn't even funny. What does he think maybe, that he could get people banned, and then him and his cronies would have free reign to do what ever they please, and without any opposition to it ? He's dreaming if he thinks that away. It is the same thing that is going on out in the physical or real world so to speak, so look out for these people, as they are super controlling. It sounds like pure desperation on his part in trying to defend the indefensible if that is what he is trying to do, and this by trying to stop the debating of a conversation here like he is with his threats. He is controversial in most debates as you will notice of him, so I wouldn't take him to seriously really, but I think you all already know this about him. Is he the purest definition of a troll on a message board maybe ?  I'm not to sure what the qualifiers are, but he seems to qualify as one for sure. Great points you make, instead of threats Sil. 

Now lets see if he can somehow rise to the occasion, instead of trying to trash the debate with his tripe now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

No one is stopping the debate here, but the arguments of homosexual predators and Natural Law fall flat.  They will not be admitted before the courts, nor should they be.

The only arguments will be based on Jacksonian majority will (one of Sil's favorites) and the 14th (which Sil hates).

All the other, particularly the _ad homming _and the meanness, reveals the far right knows it is going to get is reactionary right wing ass handed to them.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 29, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue



But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered.  Well, truthfully, there are studies out there... So the entire premise that the LGBT "civil rights" gig rests upon may indeed be, and most likely is flawed.  You know what happens to the rest of an argument when it's foundation's premise is shattered, right?



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of *depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, *said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control *and Prevention, Atlanta...





> *Mayo Clinic 2007*
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...


Here's a peer-reviewed scientific review of some 350 peer-reviewed studies and conclusions drawn from them.  Note the title:



> *Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review*
> 
> James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> ...



The study concludes that across species, even in lower animals, that social factors induce an individual to select a mate according to influences outside himself.  And once that selection is made, repetition and powerful conditioning of sexual release paired with *the object of the influenced choice* = sexual preference in the future.

This last study is particularly an onerous harbinger for the future of our society as we normalize and hold out as icons, members of the church of LGBT for children to mimic.  

And, wouldn't you just know....in the same years that the church of LGBT has forced "gay marriage" on many states and gone on a media blitz promoting gayness to kids as normal, sometimes even as a matter of law, like in California...those self same years there has been a sudden spike in HIV cases in boys ages 13-24:



> Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM....
> 
> ...In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. *From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM  *CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS



And they continue to increase and "nobody knows why".....Except I do.  See the Pfaus/Centino study.  Federal and state laws mandate that if a person has good reason to believe, like oh, maybe 350 + peer-reviewed scientific studies from the nation's leading researchers, that a child might come to harm from a given thing, person or group of people, that person is mandated by law to report that suspected thing, person or group of people.  You don't need a conviction.  It's the one area of law that you can be prosecuted for just having good reason to suspect and not actual concrete facts in your hands.

However, in this case, we have more than enough concrete facts in our hands.  Then you look at my signature and draw in your breath.....Houston, we have a problem...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue
> ...




Then let me answer it for you. I was born gay.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Self diagnosis doesn't count in the legal arena.  Check the title of the thread dear.  Now check my signature.  When children's welfare is at stake, we're going to need a little more proof in court than "It's true because I say so!"


----------



## Barb (Jan 29, 2014)

"Self *diagnosis*" in re: sexual orientation is irrelevant to (at least!) the thread, crone.

See, that last might seem harsh, but it has the virtue of being honest. 

*diagnosis* assumes an illness. You might not think people pick up on the very purposeful words you choose, but you (and the fumbler of keys) would be wrong.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Trust me Barb, ignore is your friend. He's not interested in debate, just trolling.



So I'm a troll, because in the process of conveing sound argument, I posed a series of queries, that required the contributor to respond by either, confirming or rejecting, the notion that she supports the normalization of the sexual abnormality which seeks gratification through sexual relations with children?

Those who may have wondered "What does Relativism actually look like?", the contribution to which I am responding is a first class example of it.

Folks this is so twisted, that I can barely find the stomach to even look at it anymore.

If an objective reader would like to re-consider the last 6 or 7 pages and offer their opinion on how my reading of this is, misguided of otherwise incorrect, I would sure appreciate the feedback.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

this issue (But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered) is not an issue except in Sil's find.  Move on, Sil.

this issue (children's welfare is at stake) is not an issue in this case


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Trust me Barb, ignore is your friend. He's not interested in debate, just trolling.
> ...



Where_R_my_keys continues to affiliate our gay and lesbian Board members as pedophiles with _the notion that she supports the normalization of the sexual abnormality which seeks gratification through sexual relations with children?_  Reported.

This is a rules violation, in my opinion.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Were ya?  

So you were born with an abnormal sexual proclivity and because this makes you sad, you expect that everyone should just accept that, because you were born with it, it must be NORMAL?

Oh!  Now THAT is _Fascinatin'_.

I wonder if the kids born with Down Syndrome are normal too?  Or Scoliosis, is THAT NORMAL as well?  

I wonder if Children born with the HIV are normal?  And should we let those kids interact with the other normal kids?  

I do know that there is a HUGE push within the Movement, which advocates to normalize sexual abnormality, to normalize HIV.  

I recall when Magic Johnson was diagnosed, that he wanted to play ball despite being infected with death waiting to happen, that there was a MAJOR MEDIA EFFORT which sought to inform the public that people with HIV are just like everyone else, and that there's practically NO CHANCE of contracting the HIV from a person infected with it, unless you happen to have a means to get their blood into your body.

Which almost NEVER HAPPENS, why its practically NORMAL, if normal represents incurable viral infections, OKA: Escalating Premature, wholly unavoidable Misery and Death.

Of course those same people can't see ANYTHING NORMAL about Smoking, which will knock YEARS off a person's life.  In contrast to HIV which knocks DECADES off a person's life.

Of course just a generation AGO, SMOKING was engaged in by a MAJORITY of the people in the US.  Then because of the health risks, MOST of the SAME people that are claiming that Homosexuality is PERFECTLY NORMAL, despite it being realized in 2-3% of the population, decided that SMOKING SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED!

So will someone explain to me the difference?

Smoking Kills. Homosexuality KILLS.  Smoking knocks down the average age of the average smoker, by 2-3 years.  HIV shuts down the life of the average Homo by more than a DECADE.  

Of course Smoking Stinks. But homosexuality causes depression.

Smoking is falsely claimed to be harmful to others.  Homosexuality harms parents, siblings, friends and the children of all of the above.  

Smoking is discouraged.  Homosexuality is ENCOURAGED.

WTF?


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




It's not a diagnosis. Who would know better? I can assure you that my sexual orientation is not a choice. Who are you to disagree? Did you choose?


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



"It's true because I say so!"  is about all these pathetic and sad excuses for Human Beings have .  I find it highly unlikely anyone is *Born Gay*  There is no Gay Gene although homosexuals attempt to cling to half baked theories about hormone levels and etc... the fact remains that *Gays are Made not Born*

Homosexuality is the result of complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence .  In many cases the Homosexual was molested by another homosexual as a small child - Childhood traumatic experiences of which the person is cognizant of , as well as suppressed traumatic memories are key suspect factors.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Who would know better? I am telling you in first person, eye witness accounting, that I did not choose to be attracted to women. I am telling you, as a gay person, I did not choose the attractions I've had from my earliest memories. I suffered no trauma, was not raped or abused, never had a bad experience with a man or any of the other ludicrous "reasons" you can pull out of your 4th point of contact.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I completely agree.  Sil has spoken to this at length, posted up actual science on the issue and it confirms it.  But it's truly common sense.  With all of the 'Nuh-uhs' streaming in, to the contrary, notwithstanding.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Would someone please ask her: "What is your first Memory?"  

Because I recall as my first memory, my Grandmother falling down in the kitchen.  That she professes hers to be somehow related to her sexuality, piques my curiosity.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



FTR: The above is the basis for "I'm Normal" because she feels that is how she was born.  She was born that way, thus that is HER NORMALITY.  

This without regard to the incontrovertible FACT that her sexual proclivities DEVIATE from the biological DESIGN that represents the BIOLOGICAL, therefore SEXUAL, STANDARD.

It's a fallacious appeal to self interests, OKA: Subjectivity, the core of the addled species of reasoning known as RELATIVISM!


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



They are not always cognizant memories, at times they are also suppressed.  So much ado about your "first  person eye-witness accounting" .


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...




So...not a choice even if that were true...which it's not. 

I'm not repulsed by or hate men. Sex with men was pleasant...below the waist.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Beanie, your problem is that you think being gay is about sex.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Beanie, your problem is that you think being gay is about sex.



Oh here we go.  "It's complex".  Because being gay isn't about sex.  It's about 'loving' someone of your own gender.  

I love other men.  There's my Dad, sons, my life long pals.  

I would lay my life down for any of 'em.  

Of course, I don't have romantic interests in them.  

Hmm... 

Romantic: inclined toward or suggestive of the feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love, emphasizing emotion over libido.

Libido: sexual desire

OOOPS!  

Sorry kids, turns out, it's not complex AT ALL.  And "BEING GAY" IS, MOST DECIDEDLY: *About SEX!*


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> So...not a choice even if that were true...which it's not.
> 
> I'm not repulsed by or hate men. Sex with men was pleasant...below the waist.


You're supposed to spend time above the waist?


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



"Sex with men was pleasant...below the waist."  So actually seahag , whether you realize it or not, you've just betrayed a deep inner cause of your Dementia  - possibly psychotic , possibly more deeply traumatic - *The subliminal aspects of your Psyche fears Men *- perhaps your early Childhood Trauma was not of a sexual nature , perhaps something else you experienced or witnessed , perhaps more than one instance imprinted on your impressionable young mind. 

Violence ,or violent acting out by a male relative  - it doesn't even have to be physically violent , just something that would generate fear within a pre-cognizant or semi-cognizant infant or Toddler could trigger a severe phobia directed at the Male sex, so much so that your inner defense mechanisms even generates a revulsion of the Male - face 2 face sex with men was not pleasant for you - but you still got your rocks off by the intercourse.  

You sound like I girl a boinked b4 I got married - have we met b4 ?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> "It's true because I say so!"  is about all these pathetic and sad excuses for Human Beings have .  I find it highly unlikely anyone is *Born Gay*  There is no Gay Gene although homosexuals attempt to cling to half baked theories about hormone levels and etc... the fact remains that *Gays are Made not Born*
> 
> Homosexuality is the result of complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence .  In many cases the Homosexual was molested by another homosexual as a small child - Childhood traumatic experiences of which the person is cognizant of , as well as suppressed traumatic memories are key suspect factors.



You mean all those really good looking guys on the Gay Parade floats could bang any woman they want but choose not to? They are attracted to women, but would rather bang men?

How...quaint...


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > "It's true because I say so!"  is about all these pathetic and sad excuses for Human Beings have .  I find it highly unlikely anyone is *Born Gay*  There is no Gay Gene although homosexuals attempt to cling to half baked theories about hormone levels and etc... the fact remains that *Gays are Made not Born*
> ...



I was talking about Dykes not Queers - two differing Dementia's


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Don't know if it's a rules violation or not - but the fact of the matter is that *Gay Men are the number one molesters of Boys.*  Homosexual Men, who comprise less than 3% of the population are responsible for 30 to 35% of all pedophilia cases against Male Children.

Homosexual Men are a dangerous and devious lot and should not be left alone with young Children.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Irrelevant. Neither suffer from dementia...


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



You are Sadly misinformed .  *Homosexuality is a Mental Disorder*


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 29, 2014)

Prove it.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> Prove it.




Been there - done that - many times.

Try checking out the link below, and its linked to studies and articles  
if you're not a pre-programmed Big Brother Parrot incapable of Independent Thought Perhaps you'll get an Education.

*Is Homosexuality a Disease
*

Class Dismissed - see you later .


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it.
> ...



When you can quote from a reputable source that has links to reputable sites, get back to me.

Dismissed...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > So...not a choice even if that were true...which it's not.
> ...




There was no connection there. That's the point being missed. Being gay isn't about sex...that's just the fringe benefit.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...




 yeah okay dime store psychologist. Much better than barracks lawyers. 

I can "get my rocks off" on the spin cycle of the washer. I don't fall madly, deeply, wholly in love with it like I do women.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




^^^^myth, not fact^^^^

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > "It's true because I say so!"  is about all these pathetic and sad excuses for Human Beings have .  I find it highly unlikely anyone is *Born Gay*  There is no Gay Gene although homosexuals attempt to cling to half baked theories about hormone levels and etc... the fact remains that *Gays are Made not Born*
> ...



I'll tell ya what's quaint.  Pretending to be a moderate, well balanced individual, professing to serve as surrogate to people who profess a proclivity toward sexual abnormality and all of the twisted baggage that comes with that.  Setting infant children into desperately dangerous circumstances and when asked of their position regarding the movement to legalize the pursuit of children for sexual relations, being SO committed to children that she can't find the strength of character to PUBLICLY REJECT SO MUCH AS THE IDEA.

That's quaint ... at least in the sarcastic sense that you've used it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

seawytch said:


> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> > jakestarkey said:
> ...



* Yet another appeal to the subjective advocacy, the purpose of which is to Deceitfully advance FRAUDULENCE as a means to influence the Ignorant.  OKA: 

>> SCIENCE ! ! <<*​
Now for those who aren' familiar with the above cited drivel, allow me to provide you a telling excerpt this would-be authoritative tome, which has been in the ANSA Boilerplate inventory for many years: 

"_The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer &#8211; 9% of men and 6% of women &#8211; regarded most lesbians as child molesters._"  

The resident logicians will recognize it as little more than feckless populism.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I would seriously doubt that the rules prohibit the posting of documented, incontrovertible fact, repeatedly, word for word as it occurred and drawing from that fact a soundly reasoned conclusion.

Beyond that sound logical construct, which provides for it to be unlikely, that the relevant contributor is asserting: 'it is true', the odds of probability provide that: 'it is not true'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



To what sources are you referring?

Our own proponent of the legalization of adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification, has linked to a UCLA resource, which provided a thoroughly fallacious construct AS SCIENCE.

Would you care to point to any SPECIFIC failed points of reasoning in the article you have rejected out of hand?

(The Contributor will now NOT point of ANY SPECIFIC FAILED POINTS OF REASONING, as have not read the article and are CLUELESS on what a sound point of reason so much as LOOKS LIKE, let alone, what it's made of.

Don't believe me?  KEWL!  just wait and watch.)


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Does that babble make sense to you?  If so...what drugs are you taking?  If not...why did you post it?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



You need to be locked up...in a straitjacket, in a padded cell with the door welded closed, in the highest-security wing of a maximum-security mental ward.  You are absolutely batshit insane.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



What a perfect example of five-dollar words from a five-cent mind!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Sorry, Fakey, but Silly is not far-right!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



No, that's another LIE.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Damn, you're dumb as a rock.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Trust me Barb, ignore is your friend. He's not interested in debate, just trolling.



He's a bit like Silly....a human spambot.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

Six posts and not a single soundly reasoned perspective in the entire batch.

Tell ya what.  I'm new here and I don't like to misjudge people, on first impressions.  

So let's do this.  If you're able, see if there's something I've said that you would like to either join or contest, through something akin to valid reasoning.  

Otherwise, your GONE!

Last chance, Cupcake.

(Folks, notice how they're incapable of objectivity on ANYTHING.  They're purely concerned with what they 'feel' at any given moment.

Which topically, is why they represent such a threat to children.  She could be ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that she's totally against having sex with kids one minute and the next see something she feels is cute and be back from the store with a pocket full of lollies and roofies ten minutes later, offering to baby sit. )


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> yeah okay dime store psychologist. Much better than barracks lawyers.
> 
> *I can "get my rocks off" on the spin cycle of the washer.* I don't fall madly, deeply, wholly in love with it like I do women.



Thank you, I now blame you for my cat clawing me!

Upon reading that, I spit water all over my cat!   

My wife's input on that: "I must admit, I am not certain how she does it, but it sounds interesting."


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Six posts and not a single soundly reasoned perspective in the entire batch.
> 
> Tell ya what.  I'm new here and I don't like to misjudge people, on first impressions.
> 
> ...



Dude, I'm just laughing at you.  You're a bit like the idiots from the WBC, except much more cowardly about it!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Her cult homosexual predator crap is far right loony tunes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That is merely your opinion, and you should take heed of your counsel.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

> seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > greenbean said:
> ...



facts about homosexuality and child molestation

And the crazy myth making continues.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.

Ban heterosexual marriage so the pervs can't adopt.

The facts are simple; religion and Natural Law and cult crap do not influence SCOTUS decisions.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




The Link you posted has been debunked time and time again on various forums as well as by peer review.  It was an article based on a study which was conducted with the sole purpose on arriving at a pre-determined conclusion by a Gay Activist and is not science .  The "Researcher"involved has been criticized repeatedly for failing to maintain anything even resembling Scientific Objectivity.

*It is Junk Science* and  worthy of any more of my time.  If you wish to look at some *OBJECTIVE* Studies , conducted by researchers who were wholly unbiased and initiated their studies with no intent of predetermination or in criminal lingo - which the article you cited should be considered "Malice of Forethought"



> His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents....
> 
> Our study confirms earlier work carried out in the UK, USA and Holland which suggests that non-heterosexual people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and self-harm than heterosexual people.
> 
> ...




*Therapist Calls Homosexuality "Mental Illness"*




> *Population-based studies*
> 
> Several large population-based public health studies are discussed in the November American Psychologist (Vol. 56, No. 11) by Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies. Specifically, the studies find:
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that the data from the APA is watered down and laced with Gay apologist interjections as it comes from a Gay controlled organization, but even they couldn't entirely mask the Truth.





> N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.,
> A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle.
> 
> Your accusation of dishonesty is misplaced. Positions taken by the APA or WHO are not related to the science; those organizations are politicized (see politicized science). What matters is the research.
> ...






> Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women
> 
> Studies from North America, often based on community samples, suggest that gay men and lesbians are more vulnerable to anxiety, depression, deliberate self-harm and substance misuse than heterosexuals (Hershberger & D'Augelli, 1995; Fergusson et al, 1999; Lock & Steiner, 1999; Cochran et al, 2003).





> Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Studies  Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms Jan. 2014
> 
> The aim of this study was to examine whether sexual minorities are at increased risk for psychotic symptoms and to explore mediating pathways. The study concluded that homosexual orientation is most definitely associated with psychotic symptoms and further states that the study adds to the growing body of literature linking minority status with psychosis and other mental health problems. In an effort to remain politically correct the paper presented goes on to suggest that their findings are possibly due to experiences of discrimination and social exclusion.
> 
> The risk of psychotic symptoms is two to three times greater among homosexual participants in the study than among heterosexual participants. The researchers found this result using data from the Netherlands Mental Health and Incidence Studies (NEMESIS-1 and NEMESIS-2), two large-scale epidemiological studies which aim to investigate how often mental health problems occur in the general population.   Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms






> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> This Study explored the rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.  Hookers "study" only used two groups of 30 men each, and the homosexual respondents were hand picked, where as in the University College Study they were not.  *Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals
> *
> Elevated levels of psychiatric problems in nonheterosexual people are "very worrying and call not only for a response by professionals in primary care and mental health services but also efforts at prevention," Apu Chakraborty, PhD, MSc, MRCPsych, of the Department of Mental Health Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues conclude.  *Medscape.com*


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.
> 
> Ban heterosexual marriage so the pervs can't adopt.
> 
> The facts are simple; religion and Natural Law and cult crap do not influence SCOTUS decisions.




You're not only an Asshole Fucker , You're a Fucking Asshole !


Homosexual Men = 2.5% of the Population
Homosexuals Men commit 35% of the Child Molestation


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 29, 2014)

I hereby resign from any further discussion on this thread.  And this website.  

As I will not associate with or in any way aid in the promotion of the legalization of child predation.  

This matter has gone well beyond an intellectual exercise and it appears to me that there may be serious issues in play.  It was not my goal, nor my purpose to cause anyone any trouble, but I will not stand by when children are at risk.  Nor will I entertain those who seek to justify the behavior of those who clearly advocate for such.

So long.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I hereby resign from any further discussion on this thread.  And this website.
> 
> As I will not associate with or in any way aid in the promotion of the legalization of child predation.
> 
> ...



Don't let the door his your arse on the way out! Ciao!


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> You're not only an Asshole Fucker , You're a Fucking Asshole !
> 
> 
> Homosexual Men = 2.5% of the Population
> Homosexuals Men commit 35% of the Child Molestation



Provide a credible link to back up your bullshit...shouldn't be hard....

Actually don't bother. I've had this argument so many times on this board it's getting boring...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.
> ...



^^^Myth not fact^^^

THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester  the stereotypical pedophile  cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.​
10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > You're not only an Asshole Fucker , You're a Fucking Asshole !
> ...



Yup...time to stop feeding the trolls. Nothing these three are blathering about has anything to do with marriage equality.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2014)

Greenbean may be a closet gay fighting with his inner self-loathing, not aware he has nothing loathe.

Sil, Where_, koshergrl, and Greenbean are myth repeaters, nothing more.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

What matters...

*Claim: Opposite-Sex Couples Make Better Parents*

In their court briefs, the Utah state officials argued that the debate about same-sex parenting is still on-going, citing flawed studies by Mark Regnerus and Douglas Allen to suggest that same-sex couples might make inferior parents. The optimal heterosexual parenting rationale, they wrote, is at least debatable, but the gold standard is an intact, biological, married family. Judge Shelby did not even bother entertaining this so-called dispute about parenting, however, because it wasnt even relevant to the marriage debate:

There is no reason to believe that Amendment 3 has any effect on the choices of couples to have or raise children, whether they are opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples. The State has presented no evidence that Amendment 3 furthers or restricts the ability of gay men and lesbians to adopt children, to have children through surrogacy or artificial insemination, or to take care of children that are biologically their own whom they may have had with an opposite-sex partner. Similarly, the State has presented no evidence that opposite-sex couples will base their decisions about having children on the ability of same-sex couples to marry. To the extent the State wishes to see more children in opposite-sex families, its goals are tied to laws concerning adoption and surrogacy, not marriage.​
Shelby went on to highlight that the amendment actually runs counter to the states goals of protecting children because it limits the support available to the 3,000 children already being raised in Utah by same-sex couples  just like, as Justice Kennedy wrote, DOMA humiliates the children of same-sex couples.

How A Federal Judge In Utah Adeptly Dismantled All Of The Arguments Against Marriage Equality


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 29, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I hereby resign from any further discussion on this thread.  And this website.
> 
> As I will not associate with or in any way aid in the promotion of the legalization of child predation.
> 
> ...



Translation: you have had your head handed to you and are now going to take your ball and go home in a snit like a 5 year old.  Coward.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 29, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > You're not only an Asshole Fucker , You're a Fucking Asshole !
> ...



And you Keep Loosing !!!!  LMFAO ! 

*Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.*

You Keep Losing the Debate - Yet you keep re-doing it - sure sign of insanity !


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > yeah okay dime store psychologist. Much better than barracks lawyers.
> ...




Just think of it as a large vibrator.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




Mind you...this is just in theory...and maybe a Penthouse Form letter.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.
> 
> Ban heterosexual marriage so the pervs can't adopt.
> 
> The facts are simple; religion and Natural Law and cult crap do not influence SCOTUS decisions.



Once again you are purposefully missing the point.  When a hetero perv molests a girl, he isn't elevated to icon status.  In fact, he's put into protective custody for a reason.  The general hetero population would be a threat to his life.  It speaks volumes about the general hetero population's feelings about child molestors.

Then there is the cult of Harvey Milk.  They know what he did and elevated him as their cultural icon.  Adding insult to injury to the cause of protecting children, _they require children as a matter of law to celebrate his sexuality in schools_.  They defend him to this day.  There's the critical difference.  

Get it?  I know you do, you're just pretending not to, which is adding even more insult to injury...


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.
> 
> Ban heterosexual marriage so the pervs can't adopt.
> 
> The facts are simple; religion and Natural Law and cult crap do not influence SCOTUS decisions.


So you elevate the scotus to god status, instead of them working for the good majority who are their bosses within this nation ? Interesting!


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

Jake knows that social factors and especially childrens' welfare WILL influence SCOTUS.  It's why gay lawyers played on the heartstrings of the Justices last year to a noted response in the positive from at least one of them.

If child welfare turns the heads of the Justices around, they need to read this again:



> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Jake knows that social factors and especially childrens' welfare WILL influence SCOTUS.  It's why gay lawyers played on the heartstrings of the Justices last year to a noted response in the positive from at least one of them.
> 
> If child welfare turns the heads of the Justices around, they need to read this again:
> 
> ...



Yes, Children's welfare will come into play when marriage equality reaches the SCOTUS again...but it won't be what you think. 

_"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."_~ Supreme Court Justice Kennedy


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.
> ...



The cult of HM exists only in your perverted mind.  Be very careful of how you refer to the folks on this Board.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains that heterosexual adults violate children in their tens of thousands each year.
> ...



Interesting you do not understand they are constitutionally (Art III) the final deciders by original jurisdiction.

Do not elevate yourself to god status.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Jake knows that social factors and especially childrens' welfare WILL influence SCOTUS.  It's why gay lawyers played on the heartstrings of the Justices last year to a noted response in the positive from at least one of them.
> 
> If child welfare turns the heads of the Justices around, they need to read this again:
> 
> ...



SCOTUS is not concerned with those who argue as you do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Jake knows that social factors and especially childrens' welfare WILL influence SCOTUS.  It's why gay lawyers played on the heartstrings of the Justices last year to a noted response in the positive from at least one of them.
> ...



Kudos to you, Seawytch, and most likely nationally.

The cult of hetero-fascism will be overturned in Utah law.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The cult of HM exists only in your perverted mind.  Be very careful of how you refer to the folks on this Board.



I can point to actual laws that enshrine Harvey Milk as "the embodiment of the LGBT *movement* across the nation and the world".  I can speak about this CULTure in a general way as much as I want.  Anyone who apologizes for a child predator or worse, enshrines his behavior as the embodiment of their cult-ture is going to hear about it.  Kids come first.  Remember we are all required by law to speak out when we just suspect children may come to harm...



> Bill Text SB 572
> 
> THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
> 
> ...





> &#8226;2010: For the 1st annual Harvey Milk Day, Badger Springs Middle School in Moreno Valley planned a week&#8217;s worth of events.  Beginning on Monday, May 17, GSA members made daily announcements including quotations from Harvey Milk and statements about how homophobia hurts everyone.  During lunchtime, students were encouraged to attend showings of &#8220;Journey to a Hate Free Millennium&#8221; in several teachers&#8217; rooms.  *The GSA distributed information and MILK duds, malted MILK balls and MILK chocolate to students. * On Friday they showed selected segments of the movie, &#8220;Milk.&#8221; http://www.gsanetwork.org/hmd



"Want some candy little boy?..."

Harvey Milk's "contributions to the state" were sodomizing a minor and other vulnerable teen orphans/homeless boys who were on drugs; and his holding a public office while openly declaring his sexuality as "gay".  Discussions of this will continue.  What happens when some 5th grader wants to check out the biography of Harvey Milk to do a book report on the more accurate details of his "sexual achievements"?  Will that kid be turned away from the library and told that account is x-rated?  What will that child discover if he gets ahold of the book and wants to really get into the details of Milk's "love for youth"?

Direct quote from Milk's biography:

_"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" _[page 180].  And it gets worse and more lurid from there.  GREAT example the LGBT cult-ure is _forcing children _to _celebrate_...

The biography even goes into details of how Milk himself was molested as an impressionable youth by men in a theatre.



> Mayo Clinic 2007
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

1. Laws that recognize LGBT achievements enshrines nothing and recognizes no cult.
2.  If you &#8220;speak about this CULTure&#8221; on the Board in a way that suggests anyone on this Board is a pedophile or supports pedophilia because they support LGBT, you will be in violation of the Rules.  
3. No law requires you to do any such thing on the Board.
4.  Get active with your school and state library board policies on Harvey Milk literature in elementary and middle schools if that bothers.  You can home school or private school as an alternative.
I wish you will continue to post civilly on this, child endangerment, topic, pointing out that both heterosexual and homosexual adults can be, and some are, a danger to children.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> 1. Laws that recognize LGBT achievements enshrines nothing and recognizes no cult.
> 2.  If you speak about this CULTure on the Board in a way that suggests anyone on this Board is a pedophile or supports pedophilia because they support LGBT, you will be in violation of the Rules.
> 3. No law requires you to do any such thing on the Board.
> 4.  Get active with your school and state library board policies on Harvey Milk literature in elementary and middle schools if that bothers.  You can home school or private school as an alternative.
> I wish you will continue to post civilly on this, child endangerment, topic, pointing out that both heterosexual and homosexual adults can be, and some are, a danger to children.



Reality seems to conflict with your assumptions.  The following gives the specific mandates from each separate state that the readers here can use to determine who should report suspected abuse or conditions that might result in abuse:





> Approximately 48 States, the District of Columbia, American
> Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and
> the Virgin Islands designate professions whose members are
> mandated by law to report child maltreatment.1 Individuals
> ...



As to specifically child sexual abuse, these guidelines are given:



> It is critical to draw upon a wide range of strategies to
> begin to impact this highly complex problem. In
> reviewing the current status, it is clear that many more
> resources exist in certain areas than in others. A truly
> ...



From Harvey Milk's biography page 180: "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems".  

Indeed, he sought them out, one after the other.

Continued..



> Until recently, convicted sex offenders living in the
> community were not treated as if they posed a particular
> threat. *Sex offenders are often among the most polite,
> compliant, apparently pro-social offenders on the
> ...



SB 572 in California encourages children to celebrate Harvey Milk's socio-sexual "accomplishments".  See my signature for details.  And don't forget, he is "the embodiment of the LGBT civil rights movement across the nation and the world"..

More...



> CWLA
> believes that prevention efforts should be directed at
> multiple levels to minimize endangerment, facilitate
> healing, and promote restorative justice. This includes
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 30, 2014)

Of all of Sil's arguments, I must say that the current "gays can't have equal rights because of Harvey Milk" is one of the most amusing. 

It's almost as good as Rand Paul saying Hillary can't be President because, well...Monica.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Of all of Sil's arguments, I must say that the current "gays can't have equal rights because of Harvey Milk" is one of the most amusing.
> 
> It's almost as good as Rand Paul saying Hillary can't be President because, well...Monica.



If Bill and Hillary had made Monica Lewinsky the icon of their sexual movement, yes, you would expect to not see either of them near politics again.  

Is sidestepping the issue of iconizing Harvey Milks behaviors a habit for you?  And by the way, they aren't "my arguments".  They are links to professional reports on the mandates to report and be aware of potential child abuse.  I had nothing to do with their publication or enactment into laws.  However, I, like everyone else, am mandated to follow those laws...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

And if bunny rabbits gave strawberry smelling farts, that would as much sense as the Mona Lewinsky remark.

Iconizing is your term, not any one else's.  Yes, they are your arguments, and your interp of professional reports and duty to inform does not include suggesting that anyone who supports LGBT is an a cult of pedophilia.

Sil, if you insinuate again that anyone who supports the LGBT movement is prone to pedophilia, you will be reported.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> And if bunny rabbits gave strawberry smelling farts, that would as much sense as the Mona Lewinsky remark.
> 
> Iconizing is your term, not any one else's.  Yes, they are your arguments, and your interp of professional reports and duty to inform does not include suggesting that anyone who supports LGBT is an a cult of pedophilia.
> 
> Sil, if you insinuate again that anyone who supports the LGBT movement is prone to pedophilia, you will be reported.



Report away.  I will continue to air the Harvey Milk/LGBT connection that exists as I always have.  By the way Mr. Lawyer, thanks for showing your weak scale...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jan 30, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



We clearly have different model washers...


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 30, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




One of the balancing feet has to be slightly off from the other...in theory


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And if bunny rabbits gave strawberry smelling farts, that would as much sense as the Mona Lewinsky remark.
> ...



I knew you would back away.  Talk about HM all you fucking want.  Cross the line with the insinuations.  Choices have consequences.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And if bunny rabbits gave strawberry smelling farts, that would as much sense as the Mona Lewinsky remark.
> ...



*That's a sure sign you've won *- when the lefties cry foul and want to report you to "The Authorities" -  However USMessage boards are the only ones that truly honor Free Speech .  Trust Me - I've been bounced off several others because the left didn't like my opinions.   Keep up the Good Work Silhouette !!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And if bunny rabbits gave strawberry smelling farts, that would as much sense as the Mona Lewinsky remark.
> ...



Please do, its further confirmation of the fact that gay Americans are subject to unwarranted attacks on their civil liberties, and fosters the cause of recognizing equal protection rights for same-sex couples.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 30, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



And please continue to exhibit your ignorance and hate as well, it will provide the same benefit to gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So do threats.  Again, thanks for exposing the achilles' heel in the legal arguments for the petitioners in Harvey Milk vs Utah.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Don't worry.  I will.  I have to.  I can be prosecuted for failing to notice that the church of LGBT has as its messiah a child sex predator and that they want access to adopt orphans through marriage.

Also, feel free to join in.  When this all washes out you will no doubt want to come down on the side of erring in order to protect children.  After all, the law requires you do that.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 31, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



 Milk has been elevated to sainthood by the leftist gay community. The problem is that  Harvey Milk was an habitual serial child abuser.

Randy Shilts , a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle and a close friend of Milk&#8217;s. In his biography of Milk he wrote, 



> &#8220;Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems.&#8221; One of those &#8220;waifs&#8221; was a 16 year old runaway from Maryland who Milk picked up on the streets of San Francisco. Of their relationship Shilts wrote,&#8221;&#8230; Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. &#8230; At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.&#8221;




Harvey Milk continued to publicly advocate for Jonestown cult leader Rev. Jim Jones. Using his influence as an elected member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Milk wrote a letter to then-president Jimmy Carter, demanding that investigations into Rev. Jones' cult compound in Guyana be stopped.   The Legacy of Harvey Milk: 918 Murder Victims







*Thank You Dan White !*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> *That's a sure sign you've won   when the lefties cry foul and want to report you to "The Authorities" -  However USMessage boards are the only ones that truly honor Free Speech .  Trust Me - I've been bounced off several others because the left didn't like my opinions.   Keep up the Good Work Silhouette !!!*


*

The USMB has rules.  I don't care if she believes in anything  or not.  But certain boundaries exist here.  We all have to live with it.  So will you, noob.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


  I notice you are following the rules.  good on you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

> Don't worry.  I will.  I have to.  *I can be prosecuted for failing to notice that the church of LGBT has as its messiah a child sex predator and that they want access to adopt orphans through marriage.*
> 
> Also, feel free to join in.  When this all washes out you will no doubt want to come down on the side of erring in order to protect children.  After all, the law requires you do that.



The bolded exists only in your mind.  Report away.  Thank you for following the rules/.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

> Milk has been elevated to sainthood by the leftist gay community. The problem is that  Harvey Milk was an habitual serial child abuser.  Thank You Dan White ![/B]


  Thank you for following the rules.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > Don't worry.  I will.  I have to.  *I can be prosecuted for failing to notice that the church of LGBT has as its messiah a child sex predator and that they want access to adopt orphans through marriage.*
> >
> > Also, feel free to join in.  When this all washes out you will no doubt want to come down on the side of erring in order to protect children.  After all, the law requires you do that.
> 
> ...




Kindly Educate us - what exactly were the TOS violations ?  I must be missing something here


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

Greenbean, you are a noob, so go read the Rules.

I am applauding Silohuette for following the board rules.

Good on her.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Harvey Milk continued to publicly advocate for Jonestown cult leader Rev. Jim Jones. Using his influence as an elected member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Milk wrote a letter to then-president Jimmy Carter, demanding that investigations into Rev. Jones' cult compound in Guyana be stopped.   The Legacy of Harvey Milk: 918 Murder Victims
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What Dan White did wasn't excuseable either.  He shouldn't have killed his fellow democrats.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  

I forgot all about the Jonestown connection too.  There were a lot of kids who died under that cult too.  HIV gets them the slow way but dead kids are dead kids from any cult.  So it's important to take action.

Years of huge progress for judicial-legislated church of LGBT marriage and concurrent pro-gay [rainbows everywhere] media blitz: 2008 to present.



> *Dramatic increase in HIV *infection rates among gay men, youth
> December 20th, 2012
> 
> New data from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveal a sharp increase in the number of new HIV infections among gay and bisexual men and, in particular, among young men ages 13-24. The new data includes statistics from 2010 and trends from prior years dating back to 2007.
> ...



[Hey Jake: I've always followed the rules here.  Like I do everywhere I go.  In fact, I'm one of the most cordial debaters anti-LGBT movement that you'll find on the internet.  If they ban me, it is one and the same as banning free speech.  That's not something that serves a board like this's best interest.  Neither is colluding to keep under wraps a disturbing trend of a subculture who venerate a child sex predator, trying to get at marriage so, ultimately, they can get at adoptable orphans without all that pesky screening at the agencies.  One good lawsuit should wedge that door open and scare the 'straights' into compliance, right?]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

You were insinuating in violation of the rules, and you were called on it.

There is no free speech in an internet chat room, deer.

No matter how hard you try you simply cannot document your thesis of "a disturbing trend of a subculture who venerate a child sex predator".  

When you insinuate anyone on the board who supports LGBT thus supports such a trend is a violation of the rules, and you will be reported.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

Aw...poor Jake is trying to derail the topic to "how you can get reported" which serves two purposes:

1. To try to scare off any other posters wanting to discuss the obvious child sex issues with Harvey Milk and the church of LGBT and 

2. To get people talking about anything, anything, ANYTHING but THAT!

..lol...

Back to the topic:



GreenBean said:


> Harvey Milk continued to publicly advocate for Jonestown cult leader Rev. Jim Jones. Using his influence as an elected member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Milk wrote a letter to then-president Jimmy Carter, demanding that investigations into Rev. Jones' cult compound in Guyana be stopped.   The Legacy of Harvey Milk: 918 Murder Victims
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What Dan White did wasn't excuseable either.  He shouldn't have killed his fellow democrats.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  

I forgot all about the Jonestown connection too.  There were a lot of kids who died under that cult too.  HIV gets them the slow way but dead kids are dead kids from any cult.  So it's important to take action.

Years of huge progress for judicial-legislated church of LGBT marriage and concurrent pro-gay [rainbows everywhere] media blitz: 2008 to present.



> *Dramatic increase in HIV *infection rates among gay men, youth
> December 20th, 2012
> 
> New data from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveal a sharp increase in the number of new HIV infections among gay and bisexual men and, in particular, among young men ages 13-24. The new data includes statistics from 2010 and trends from prior years dating back to 2007.
> ...



[Hey Jake: I've always followed the rules here.  Like I do everywhere I go.  In fact, I'm one of the most cordial debaters anti-LGBT movement that you'll find on the internet.  If they ban me, it is one and the same as banning free speech.  That's not something that serves a board like this's best interest.  Neither is colluding to keep under wraps a disturbing trend of a subculture who venerate a child sex predator, trying to get at marriage so, ultimately, they can get at adoptable orphans without all that pesky screening at the agencies.  One good lawsuit should wedge that door open and scare the 'straights' into compliance, right?]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

Let's be accurate, dear: No matter how hard you try you simply cannot document your thesis of "a disturbing trend of a subculture who venerate a child sex predator". 

I encourage all to post on this topic without violating the board rules.

Thank you for changing your Cult theme to one of a supposed criminal subculture.

I imagine there are subcultures among heterosexual groupings that prey on children as well as adopting or birthing prey.

Thank you for following the Board rules.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's be accurate, dear: No matter how hard you try you simply cannot document your thesis of "a disturbing trend of a subculture who venerate a child sex predator".
> 
> I encourage all to post on this topic without violating the board rules.
> 
> ...



No change at all. LGBT is a cult as cults are defined.  Case in point, a detractor was Anne Heche.  She "defected" from the cult values.  As such, LGBTers became viciously angry at her, & a la Scientology, villified her and made her name synonymous in their vernacular to "one who is a heretic/hated/one who defects from gayness back to straight".

From Urban Dicitonary:



> anne heche
> 
> When a woman goes lesbian for another female then goes heterosexual and leaves the female for another man.
> 
> ...



The implied to the mesmerized followers: "If you defect, you will be called "the hated one" and will be villified".  That's the same exact tactic all cults have used since the dawn of time to keep members psychologically captive.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

Cults are religious groupings.  _Cult* - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous._

If you are talking about the sociology of grouping, then you may have a point about Anne Heche.  We had a similar instance here at the Board when one of the far right in the election of 2012 who went over to Obama in the last three months,  and and the far right here "became viciously angry at [him], & a la Scientology, villified [him]and made [him] name synonymous in their vernacular to 'one who is a heretic/hated/one who defects from gayness back to straight'".

I guarantee you that if you support LGBT that your peer group will vilify you, yes.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's be accurate, dear: No matter how hard you try you simply cannot document your thesis of "a disturbing trend of a subculture who venerate a child sex predator".
> 
> I encourage all to post on this topic without violating the board rules.
> 
> ...



wannabe moderator


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

wannabee stalker


----------



## Yurt (Jan 31, 2014)

go run to the mods jakey the tattle tale

LGBT are not a cult.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

You are right.  The LGBT are not a cult.  Good for you, Yurt,  Like a chipmunk, if I give you enough seeds, operant conditioning works on forming what you say.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 31, 2014)

did you run to the mods again stalker?   did you tattle?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

you really got your tail in a ringer for getting caught out, and you are still bitching?

you are whining


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cults are religious groupings.  _Cult* - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous._
> 
> .



I'd say venerating a "civil rights icon" who buggered orphaned teen boys on drugs as his "sexual preference = gay", and then requiring kids in elementary school to celebrate that man as the hero of the LGBT 'movement' qualifies as dangerous.

"Anne Heche" is synonymous with "heretic" in lavender venacular.  Laws passed in California by the church of LGBT make it a crime if a therapist helps a minor throw off his own unwanted homosexual compulsions even if those compulsions came from being "tampered with" [another lavender term] by being molested by a same sexed perp.

Yet, simultaneously, if a minor wants any assistance whatsoever to explore being "bi-curious" or "come out gay" from the straight ranks, scads upon scads of resources and support are laid out before him, all sanctioned and cool as a matter of law.

That is nothing less than cult indoctrinization when it rises to the level of forbidding free speech between a therapist and his client's private wishes.

Of course the words "tampered with" in the church of LGBT's doctrines simply means "imprinted".  And that means they know something pure has been adulterated and skewed from its normal path.  They also meant for that law forbidding a person from pushing away an unwanted "tampering" to be until the minor was 18.  You know, repetition without help or deterrants by the child reaches 18 means that the chances of them going back to their original orientation [straight, before they were molested] drop to around zero...


They know what they're doing.  It's a cult.  And it is dangerous.  Their messiah is Harvey Milk.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> you really got your tail in a ringer for getting caught out, and you are still bitching?
> 
> you are whining


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

A small group in SF who like "a 'civil rights icon' who buggered orphaned teen boys on drugs as his 'sexual preference = gay' is not indicative of a cult.  If you have a problem with his role in the text books, then go for it with state board authorities.

You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of therapy laws in California.  

You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of actualizing one's identity, whether sexually or religiously.

You are trying to create a cult to indoctrinate a hatred of LGBT.

Thank you for being respectful in your dialogue.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> *A small group in SF who like "a 'civil rights icon' who buggered orphaned teen boys on drugs as his 'sexual preference = gay' is not indicative of a cult*.  If you have a problem with his role in the text books, then go for it with state board authorities.
> 
> You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of therapy laws in California.
> 
> ...



Just one reply to that comment:






That stamp wasn't minted in San Francisco CA.  It is a United States postage commemorative stamp.  Note the rainbow "USA" at the top.

Oopsies..

And I am qualified to say that not allowing free speech between a therapist and his minor client who wants to change his orientation from what he was molested [tampered] to be, is draconian and machiavellian.  I can call out indoctrinization when I see it.  I got an A+ in college psychology, a 4.5.  It was one of the highest grades the professor ever gave a student in bonehead psych.  I may not have a degree, but I have a brain and eyes and have read the laws on child endangerment.

I've read about cults.  I see the correlations between them and the church of LGBT, their messiah, their blind defense of their messiah even when confronted with the facts of his sexual crimes against minors and teens on drugs.  So, I am qualified.  And so is any other reader who has half a wit in their head..

Here's the group taking credit for pushing for the Harvey Milk stamp: [*From LGBT Weekly*]
http://lgbtweekly.com/2013/10/10/u-s-postal-service-to-issue-harvey-milk-stamp-in-2014/ 

The group claims that it is behind a nationwide campaign for 68 chapters across the US, Mexico and Canada to promote the Harvey Milk stamp as a crowning achievement of their group.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> A small group in SF who like "a 'civil rights icon' who buggered orphaned teen boys on drugs as his 'sexual preference = gay' is not indicative of a cult.  If you have a problem with his role in the text books, then go for it with state board authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Jake, my friend...


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

That's only part of the post Seawytch, here's the whole thing in context:



JakeStarkey said:


> *A small group in SF who like "a 'civil rights icon' who buggered orphaned teen boys on drugs as his 'sexual preference = gay' is not indicative of a cult*.  If you have a problem with his role in the text books, then go for it with state board authorities.
> 
> You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of therapy laws in California.
> 
> ...



Just one reply to that comment:






That stamp wasn't minted in San Francisco CA.  It is a United States postage commemorative stamp.  Note the rainbow "USA" at the top.

Oopsies..

And I am qualified to say that not allowing free speech between a therapist and his minor client who wants to change his orientation from what he was molested [tampered] to be, is draconian and machiavellian.  I can call out indoctrinization when I see it.  I got an A+ in college psychology, a 4.5.  It was one of the highest grades the professor ever gave a student in bonehead psych.  I may not have a degree, but I have a brain and eyes and have read the laws on child endangerment.

I've read about cults.  I see the correlations between them and the church of LGBT, their messiah, their blind defense of their messiah even when confronted with the facts of his sexual crimes against minors and teens on drugs.  So, I am qualified.  And so is any other reader who has half a wit in their head..

Here's the group taking credit for pushing for the Harvey Milk stamp: [*From LGBT Weekly*]
U.S. Postal Service to issue Harvey Milk stamp in 2014 | LGBT Weekly 

The group claims that it is behind a nationwide campaign for 68 chapters across the US, Mexico and Canada to promote the Harvey Milk stamp as a crowning achievement of their group.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2014)

But the Church of Silohuette is being respectful if absolutely weirded out.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 1, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> But the Church of Silohuette is being respectful if absolutely weirded out.



So then you're saying it's one church against another?

My money in Utah then is on the Church of Latter Day Saints prevailing against the church/cult of Harvey Milk...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 1, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Jake knows that social factors and especially childrens' welfare WILL influence SCOTUS.  It's why gay lawyers played on the heartstrings of the Justices last year to a noted response in the positive from at least one of them.
> ...


Why would they refuse to be concerned (as you think) with all arguments that are placed on the table ? Is the SCOTUS one sided in their view or are they biased or paid off and/or intimidated to consider all opinions or arguments and their validity ? Wouldn't this make the SCOTUS corrupted if they are like you say ? Have their chickens finally come home to roost, and they know not what or how to deal with them ? I mean they have been there for along time, so could what they have created in the nation be a direct consequence of their dabbling in social experimentations or activism against the well wishes of the majority of citizens, and upon their thinking upon the multiple matters or issues in which have been brought before them now, and/or in the past ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > But the Church of Silohuette is being respectful if absolutely weirded out.
> ...



You are saying that, I am being facetious.

Civil liberties will win out while the LDS Church and the State of Utah will lose, yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Because SCOTUS can only opine on the law in relation to the Constitution and case law and statues.

Cult theory is only theory, like ID or Creationism or whatever: no bearing.

No, this is not social experimentation but only about civil liberties.

Constitutional liberties cannot be checked by Jacksonian majority rule.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 1, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cult theory is only theory, like ID or Creationism or whatever: no bearing.
> 
> No, this is not social experimentation but only about civil liberties.
> 
> Constitutional liberties cannot be checked by Jacksonian majority rule.


The first sentence is the premise to your following two.  If the premise fails in the first sentence then your conclusions in the other two fail as well.

That LGBT even MAY be a cult is enough to make legal argument to collapse the following two conclusions.  A cult has no business nearing orphaned kids when their messiah was known for and celebrated for his sexual crimes against orphaned teens.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Cult theory is only theory, like ID or Creationism or whatever: no bearing.
> ...



Your premise is that "LGBT even MAY be a cult" means nothing.

The issue of marriage equality is about civil liberties and the Constitution.

Child abuse is criminalization of behavior and dealt with criminal law.

You got nothing.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 1, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I'll ask you this then Jake, are all matters according to you, and for which are being based upon this erroneous myth of blanket "equality" across the board a good thing ? Should it be brought upon every issue that is brought to court as being a* good thing *? Such a tactic is being used so much now, and in a wild and wooly way anymore, that it isn't even funny now a days.  Isn't this equality thing being used so loosely now, and all across the board like it is these days ummm a very bad thing ?? 

This ideology is where the devil exploits such weakness in thought almost every time now.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 2, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Right, because if we allow consenting adult gays to have equal rights, then it naturally follows that we soon must allow people to marry their refrigerators.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 2, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Right, because if we allow consenting adult gays to have equal rights, then it naturally follows that we soon must allow people to marry their refrigerators.



No, more specifically, if we allow consenting adults to have equal privelege [marriage is not a right] in marriage, then soon, immediately almost, we must allow polygamists to marry in Utah. 

Try not to forget the topic title here Seawytch.  Utah vs Harvey Milkers is what's on board.  Not Utah vs a refrigerator fetish cult.  It's the other cult, remember?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Right, because if we allow consenting adult gays to have equal rights, then it naturally follows that we soon must allow people to marry their refrigerators.
> ...




Marriage is a fundamental right as declared by the SCOTUS (more than once). 

No, we don't have to allow polygamists to marry simply because gays can marry. Good luck trying though...and if it works, I may have to start looking for a sister wife.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2014)

Sil is struggling now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I believe in personal liberty and freedom, and SCOTUS has opined that marriage is a civil liberty.  Thus marriage equality is a good thing.

You will have to define what is "wild and wooly".

The matter is this: in no way form or fashion does marriage equality affect the religious and civil liberties of any citizen.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 2, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The matter is this: in no way form or fashion does marriage equality affect the religious and civil liberties of any citizen.



Except the mandates in Jude I, Romans I of the Bible and Poets 26 of the Koran which discuss how anyone who even enables a culture to be overtaken by homosexuality [Sodom] will be destroyed along with the culture itself.  Sent to hell to burn in the eternal Pit of Fire.

So yeah, gay marriage does infringe on 1st Amendment rights.  And it also infringes on the welfare of adoptable orphans.  [See my signature].  A cult that worships a messiah who stood for buggering orphaned teen boys on drugs has no business gaining access to adoptable orphans through marriage.  For as soon as you grant them marriage, they immediately "cannot be discriminated against" when going to adopt.

Read about their messiah.  Read well.  Remember: these are the values advancing at our nation's most vulnerable children.  Imagine being an orphaned child today, the dangers that are right on your doorstep with only the thinnest of legal lines between you and that danger..


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 2, 2014)

Hasn't this thread burned itself out, yet? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Why aren't I surprised?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2014)

News Flash: We the People decided our charter of governance is not misinterpreted scripture, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

News Flash:  Your Sig indicates that marriage does give homosexual and heterosexual marriage predominance in adoption, which does mean that certain adults of both groups will prey children.  This always has been so, hasn't, for much long in heterosexual marriages.

The way to resolve your concern is to make sure that LEO is pro-actively searching for the David Koreshes, the Warren Jeffs, the Harvey Milks.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Hasn't this thread burned itself out, yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because a number of us will not let Sil have the last word, and because as long as she hangs in here, she will be civil.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 2, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> News Flash: We the People decided our charter of governance is not misinterpreted scripture, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.



Newsflash: The People decided in Utah in 2/3rds majority to not allow gay marriage in their state's boundaries.  Glad to see you agree with the "We the People" decision Jake..  Or is it that "We the People" can only apply to advancing the interests of the cult of LGBT but not the interests of an organized religion like christianity?

There is no "misinterpretation" in scripture.  In Jude I, Romans I of the Bible, you are damned to hell for eternity for even not earnestly contending for the common salvation when it comes to staving off homosexual takeover of the culture you find yourself in.  Sodom was given as an example in the Jude I passage as representative to what will happen to other cultures if they follow suit.  Eternal damnation is the punishment for failing to earnestly contend for the faith in this regard.  Read Jude I.  Read it.  All of you reading here, read it.

To ask a christian to defy Jude I or Romans I is to ask them to submit to the eternal fires in the Pit of Hell.  You cannot ask that of a christian.  It is tantamount to banning religion officially in the US.  For if the faithful are forced to commit mortal sin, they are forced to abandon their faith, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 2, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hasn't this thread burned itself out, yet?
> ...


You are in favor of toleration or mainstreaming for homosexuality.

She is not.

Neither of you wants the other to have the last word.

Does that pretty much sum-up what this is all about?

Tell the truth, this thread seems to be kinda-sorta past its Freshness Date.

Just saying'...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2014)

The case will be decided on the 14th Amendment: I believe the conclusion is foregone.

Sil is arguing because she is unhappy about it.

But, yes, Condor, there is nothing new to argue now.


----------



## Plasmaball (Feb 2, 2014)

Yurt said:


> go run to the mods jakey the tattle tale
> 
> LGBT are not a cult.



you two going to get married?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2014)

Yurt is yurting because I won't return his man crush.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > News Flash: We the People decided our charter of governance is not misinterpreted scripture, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.
> ...


Very good points and valid ones, so it should be determined state by state, and not by a Federal Tyrannical rule in which has been the case so far in all of this I think.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 2, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Actual only six out of the 16 or 17 was by judicial ruling. Do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia, that interracial marriage should not have been by "a Federal Tyrannical rule"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Biblical reference as application to the Constitution is dismissed because Eternal Damnation is not in its purview.  No one's civil or religious liberties are infringed by the marriage equality.

The 2/3 vote then on Amendment 3 or the 48/48 split now in Utah remains immaterial because state Jacksonian democratic majority rule cannot inhibit civil liberties.

Only the 14th Amendment will determine that outcome of Utah's appeal.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The matter is this: in no way form or fashion does marriage equality affect the religious and civil liberties of any citizen.
> ...



Has absolutely no relevance to the laws of the United States.  Try again, Silly!



> So yeah, gay marriage does infringe on 1st Amendment rights.  And it also infringes on the welfare of adoptable orphans.  [See my signature].  A cult that worships a messiah who stood for buggering orphaned teen boys on drugs has no business gaining access to adoptable orphans through marriage.  For as soon as you grant them marriage, they immediately "cannot be discriminated against" when going to adopt.
> 
> Read about their messiah.  Read well.  Remember: these are the values advancing at our nation's most vulnerable children.  Imagine being an orphaned child today, the dangers that are right on your doorstep with only the thinnest of legal lines between you and that danger..



And more of the same tired old bullshit, as always.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 2, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Those points are neither good nor valid, theyre irrelevant. 

Nor is there Federal Tyrannical rule, the states are at liberty to enact whatever laws they wish, but they must afford all American citizens who happen to reside in the states access to those laws, including marriage law. Indeed, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment succeeds in preventing tyranny by the states. 

Same-sex couples are first and foremost citizens of the United States, entitled to protections of the Federal Constitution, their state of residence is irrelevant, they do not forfeit their civil liberties as a consequence of their state of residence, and the people of the states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 3, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So, the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion is "tired old bullshit"?

I guess the US Supreme Court will weigh whether or not that's true....next to weighing what they already wrote about states' "unquestioned authority" under the context of consensus on gay marriage...along with the evidence showing LGBT to be a cult with values that belong nowhere near orphaned children [see my signature].

Jar Jar, this isn't up to you or me.  It's up to the Constitution, child welfare laws and 9 people in black robes that we've charged to be custodians to those documents and their final interpretation.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Part of the problem with this whole question is that we leave it up to 9 people in black robes.   FDR wanted to add more people to the court. WE should. The court has not grown with the growth in Our population.


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 3, 2014)

Jughead said:


> Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.



The problem with that approach is that Gays can never win a Free election in the Mormon State -- their moral standards are too high.  They only way they can achieve their goals is to utilize the Liberal Mob to force it on the people of Utah against their will.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2014)

How is anyone's 1st Amendment right to religious belief and expression violated by marriage equality?  

Holy scripture does not determine the interpretation of the Constitution.

Natural law does not determine the interpretation of the Constitution. 

The states are supreme in making marriage law within the scope of the 14th Amendment.

Whether LGBT is a cult or not is immaterial: that is a matter for LEO and the criminal law.

Jacksonian democratic majorities may not violate the civil rights of minorities.

SCOTUS will make the final determinations.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.
> ...



The will of the citizens of a state cannot take away civil liberties, GreenBean, of a minority.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



marriage isnt a civil liberty


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Take that up with SCOTUS, and look up _Loving_.


----------



## GISMYS (Feb 3, 2014)

Those living in the sick abomination of sexual perversion want the usa to be another sodom and gomorrah but they need to remember the fate of the old sodom and gomorrah!!!


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race

and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict.  The court has not grown to match growth in US population.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Read the opinion.  It was far more than race.  If you tried that in SCOTUS arguments, they would turn you out into the alley.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Im not going to read it, it is irrelevant. If the Court thought so it it was simply wrong. 

and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



 So it is your feelings and opinions you are using as facts.  OK.

Tell me how marriage equality would affect your civil and religious liberties.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

I think it is very dangerous, even if you think it is a correct and just cause, To ignore the will of the people.   5 people should not be able to decide such questions. 

Everybody in America should be concerned with a court that has the arrogance to think that it should be able decide this rather than leaving the question to the will of the people which is the defining ideal of Our Republic/Democracy.


----------



## Jughead (Feb 3, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.
> ...


I'll bet some states will indeed have gay marriage ballots at the midterms. Will be interesting to see which states vote for or against. If Utah does have a ballot, it would be just a formality since we would all know the outcome ahead of time.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 3, 2014)

Jughead said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...




The only two possibilities are Indiana and Ohio that I know about.  

Indiana social conservatives are trying to get a ban on the ballot, however it must be passed by two consecutive legislatures.  The ban to Civil Marriages and Civil Unions was passed in 2011 and so had to be passed this year by the legislature to be on the ballot.  The problem is this years legislature has changed the amendment to drop the ban on Civil Unions.  That change, if it holds, means it has to be passed by the next legislature and so it won't be on the ballot this year.  However retraining the Civil Union ban means many more people won't vote in favor.

In Ohio, the state voted to ban SSCM in 2004, pro-equality groups are possibly mounting a challenge to be on the ballot in 2014 but more likely 2016.

Utah won't have a ballot on the issue this year, they already were one of the States that banned equal treatment for same-sex couple in 2004 denying them Civil Marriage and bans Civil Unions.



>>>>


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



Can't argue with you on that one Jake - However I was just stating that IMO they'll never get Gay Marriage in Utah via general election.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



As a new Amendment on the ballot, the nays would win, but it would be much, much closer this time.  I do not believe the Utah legislature would ever pass such legislation.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 3, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Neither religion nor child welfare laws have anything to do with marriage equality for gays and lesbians.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Wisconsin v Zabloski all have everything to do with this. 

Where does the 14th Amendment mention race?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> As a new Amendment on the ballot, the nays would win, but it would be much, much closer this time.  I do not believe the Utah legislature would ever pass such legislation.



That all depends on how much air time a Harvey Milk/church of LGBT TV commercial pointing out the messiah's "sexual orientation" gets in Utah just prior to the vote.

I'd say the vote would be in direct proportion in the "nays" to how many minutes of air time that commercial got there...


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



historical context....and common sense


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



supreme court precedents are not so narrow.

the holding of loving was that anti-misceganation laws are unconstitutional. 

the BASIS for the holding was that marriage is a fundamental right and the right to equal protection in the furtherance of that right can't be impaired.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

jillian said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It did undoubtedly say that the anti-miscegantion laws were illegal. Dont know for sure on rest and dont care, gay-rights activists are merely using the case to build up sympathy.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 3, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Do you think that all matters are the same, and that they can always be linked in the ways that you try and link them the way that you do ?  Yes matters and/or issues have been linked together in order to accommodate another at times, but is that right when this happens in some cases that are brought ? No it's not right, because in some cases it overrides common decency and the will of the people upon such matters where the peoples will sometimes should matter (especially where children are involved), and especially in some cases that are being brought as new into the arena these days. 

Many times issues or matters can't be linked, and they shouldn't be linked, but if you get some devious and demented fast mouth lawyers, to then go and reside upon a case or cases, then hey anything is liable to take place.  Sadly enough, and upon many rulings that were ruled upon within certain cases in the past, and in which we all now know about, that is exactly what has happened in those cases.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 3, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Of course not. 

But equal protection rights for same-sex couples have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Acknowledging the fact that same-sex couples have the right to access marriage law in no way interferes with the practice of any faith. 

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not to private persons or entities, such as religious organizations. 

If you believe same-sex marriage is wrong as dictated by your religions dogma, then that means you shouldnt enter into a same-sex marriage, it doesnt mean you have the authority to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties. 

Whats tiresome is you and others on the social right seeking to deny Americans their civil rights predicated solely on your subjective religious dogma.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 3, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



You dont understand. 

When the state seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties, in this case same-sex couples right to access marriage law, the burden rests most heavily on the state to prove what it seeks is legitimate  and appropriately so. 

In order for a measure denying a citizen his civil rights to pass Constitutional muster, it must be rationally based, predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end. 

This is why laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights continue to be invalidated, because they fail to survive these basic Constitutional tests when subjected to judicial review.  

And these measures are appropriately invalidated having nothing to do with devious and demented fast mouth lawyers, and everything to do with settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence requiring the states to afford all American citizens equal protection of the law.


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



see, that's the beauty about constitutional rights.  no one cares if we are offended by them.

marriage is a fundamental right and your particular biases don't govern who those rights pertain to.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Actually not. 

They correctly cite _Loving_ because its relevant to the issue at hand. 

From _Kitchen v. Herbert_, invalidating Utahs Amendment 3:



> [T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the states right to regulate marriage against the individuals right to equal protection and due process under the law). *In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states rights where these two interests are in conflict.* See id. at 7 (holding that a states
> power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 3, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


I see, so it's pull together the many cases and such, where as they might be joined together somehow, and this in order to strengthen ones position upon an issue, even if it is not related to the other cases, but even so it is attempted to be joined together by those who do this far stretched out joining like they love to do in which they do for that very purpose.

It is a hoped for thing, and yet not a cut and dry sort of thing, but they go there anyway with it.  Then it's hurry up and separate quickly from other things in which one can figure out how to re-configure or re-interpret such things, and all in order for it not to tear one's case apart, and that is what you seem to be doing here in response to.  I see how the game is always played on these things (Go this way/Go that way-Go that way/Go this way). Carry on.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 3, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Well the Utah judge said that shortly after another Utah Federal Judge set the ball rolling on coloring polygamy as a right also. .....They are both poor rulings, certainly not based on the intent or plain meaning of the 14th amendment.   



jillian said:


> see, that's the beauty about constitutional rights.  no one cares if we are offended by them. marriage is a fundamental right and your particular biases don't govern who those rights pertain to.



Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, it is a relic from the church-state of England.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 3, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


The very purpose of applying or interpreting the Bill of rights in this way, is for those to basically make the judges themselves ((("god's"))), who will then move to over rule the good will of the majority on such issues almost always now, and they do this even though the issues still should be considered by the courts in respect for the majority as well, and to be done as a careful balancing upon the impact in which should be viewed or thought about also upon the issues, and this before they are ruled upon in a one sided way. 

The majority are sure to be always affected the most by it's decision making upon so many cases that are being brought, so the courts should consider this very fact as a huge factor to consider, especially if those decisions are in conflict with the majority who are directly affected, and their understanding of things the way they understand them as a majority, along with their well wishes on such matters that are being considered or not being considered.

No matter how you look at it, we have tyranny by the federal courts upon this land now, and upon many things or issues we all have understood over time for them to be, and these are issues that many still hold dear as Americans in this nation.  The good people are suffering greatly for it all, and the government is under siege by those who seek to over throw by way of the government, and it's un-equal power that it now serves, and is wielding against the majority out of fear of an intellectual minority that it serves more so than the moral majority now.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 3, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Incorrect: 



> After federal district Judge Clark Waddoups' decision, *Utah still prohibits bigamy  a marriage license can only be issued for one spouse at a time.* But the ruling does prevent the state from using "cohabitation" as a basis for prosecution. Previously, authorities could prosecute men and women for living together in what appeared to be a polygamous relationship.
> 
> Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR



There is no right to polygamy, and no court has ruled as such; but there is a First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression and a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, however: 



> Judge Clark Waddoups of United States District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that part of the states law prohibiting cohabitation  the language used in the law to restrict polygamous relationships  *violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion, as well as constitutional due process.* He left standing the states ability to prohibit multiple marriages in the literal sense of having two or more valid marriage licenses.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html



Last, there is indeed a fundamental right to marriage, and your position is factually wrong, where the case law affirming this has already been cited several times.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 3, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


At what point does this so called equal protection break down ? It breaks down when people want to bend and stretch the laws, lose ones decency, and to break the known moral codes that we all have or should have to the point of out right ridiculousness these days. Funny how people try and make one think that equal protection applies in just about every case, and in every issue, and in every situation when we know good and well that it can't be that way, and it shouldn't be something that is just cut and dry like that, but some try and suggest that it is when we all know that it ain't.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 3, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> *At what point does this so called equal protection break down ? It breaks down when people want to bend and stretch the laws, lose ones decency, and to break the known moral codes that we all have or should have to the point of out right ridiculousness *these days. Funny how people try and make one think that equal protection applies in just about every case, and in every issue, and in every situation when we know good and well that it can't be that way, and it shouldn't be something that is just cut and dry like that, but some try and suggest that it is when we all know that it ain't.



The point where it breaks down is called "behavior".  Behaviors are regulated and discriminated against daily.  LGBT behaves and functions like a cult, a church.  It comes complete with evangelizing http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/222768-gay-day-at-disney.html , heretics [Anne Heche], a messiah: [see my signature] and a dogmatic rule that says that sex must be unconventional, with objects or people that aren't capable of reproduction; which of course is why sex evolved in biology.

Cults and behaviors aren't qualifiers for protection under the Constitution.  If the church of LGBT wants to get federal recognition, that would be the surest way to get special treatment out of the hundreds of sexual or other behavior compulsions or fetishes.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 4, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



The logic that says gay-marriage is a right is the same logic that will lead to legalized polygamy.

How the one judge could say anything differently has to show a lack of internally consistent logic within his opinion.

In fact a prominent gay-rights activist was an attorney arguing in favor of the polygamy case.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 4, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> The logic that says gay-marriage is a right is the same logic that will lead to legalized polygamy.
> 
> How the one judge could say anything differently has to show a lack of internally consistent logic within his opinion.




That's because bigamy is morally repugnant, while sticking your whanger in another guys rectum and pretending he is "your woman", while doing so spreads ungodly amounts of STDs and AIDS, is perfectly normal, OK, fine.

Don't you see the judge's legal logic?  I mean, a cult that has as it's morality-messiah, one Harvey Milk who's sexual orientation was to sodomize orphaned teen boys on drugs, unceremoniously discarding one for another like Kleenex [while temporarily officiating as their "father figure"], should be able to get married, while those "perverts" who want more than one wife to wed and care for into her old age shouldn't get near marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 4, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




No, it isn't logical.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4454076/


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 4, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways.   Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.   

But I think you are right If you are saying that differentiating between the two when looking on marriage as a 14th amendment right is illogical..  And I think SC justices should also see it the same way.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 4, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Youre still not understanding. 

The state is at liberty to curtail, restrict, or in some cases deny citizens their civil liberties pursuant to a proper legislative end for reasons of public welfare or safety, provided such restrictions are applied to everyone equally.  

Lets take a classic First Amendment restriction as an example. 

As we all know, one may not yell fire in a crowded theater, ones right to free speech does not extend to such an act, and for good reason, as individuals might be injured or even killed in the ensuing panic. 

Now, to illustrate equal protection doctrine, lets assume a state passes a law disallowing Asian Americans *only* from yelling fire in a crowded theater, where every other racial/ethnic group is at liberty to do so. 

This, then, is an equal protection violation, not because the ultimate goal of the state is unreasonable, but because the motive to adversely effect a particular class of persons is.  

There is no evidence, for example, that Asian Americans are any more likely to yell fire in a theater than any other class of persons  and lacking a rational basis and evidence in support, such a measure would be invalidated as a violation of the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause, just as it is the case with same-sex couples, where to disallow them access to marriage law is not rationally based, there is no evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, and to do so pursues no proper legislative end. 

Moreover, equal protection doctrine is not a blanket policy to allow citizens to engage in behavior clearly demonstrated to be detrimental to society as a whole, and states may avoid equal protection violation challenges to their laws simply by avoiding seeking to deny a particular class of persons its civil liberties.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 4, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways.   Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.
> 
> But I think you are right If you are saying that differentiating between the two when looking on marriage as a 14th amendment right is illogical..  *And I think SC justices should also see it the same way*.



I have a feeling that when it comes to Utah especially, they will be examining polygamy as a shoe-in if a precedent for forcing gay marriage on the states is set.

Fer shizzle...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 5, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youre still not understanding.
> 
> *The state is at liberty to curtail, restrict, or in some cases deny citizens their civil liberties *pursuant to a proper legislative end *for reasons of public welfare or safety*, provided such restrictions are applied to everyone equally.
> 
> ...



Your premise in the foregoing is that LGBTs are a race of people.  They are not.  They are a cult with behaviors that are inappropriate for the word "marriage".

Let's examine what in the cult of LGBT would be objectionable to society such that society must ban them from marrying.  Take a look at my signature.  The cult's messiah Harvey Milk has been enshrined as a matter of law as the singular sexual figure who "embodies the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".  Days at school are set aside for children to celebrate this LGBT sexual icon [there's more than just one thing wrong with that].  A postage stamp commissioned by over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Mexico and Cananda with Harvey Milk's creepy mug on it, complete with rainbow "USA" at the top is due to be released this year.  

Harvey Milk's iconized-gayness, his sexual preference was for orphaned teen boys on drugs, one after the other.  One of them he officiated as "father figure" to, killed himself years later on Milk's birthday..  Another of his teen orphan drug-rape victims killed himself as well and I believe also a third.  You'd have to read his sordid biography to get the full details on the other two of a string of minor/vulnerable sex victims of Milk's because in his iconized "sexual orientation", he also avowed rampant promiscuity.

Marriage has as one of its many perks, the elevation to top-tier consideration for adoptable orphans.  Clearly.....CLEARLY the state that is the guardian of adoptable orphans must question if 

1. LGBT even has a hint of the trappings of a cult/fad/social movement instead of being a "race" of people. [that last bit of course is absurd.  Of course they are not a race of people].

2. If those cult values and their iconized leadership have even a hint of inappropriate sexuality around children.  Especially orphaned adoptable children that the state is custodian of.  Bear in mind the church of LGBT when reminded of Milk's crimes, jumps to defend him instead of denounces him.

So there is your clear and present harm to a state's welfare by gays marrying.  Do heteros molest children?  Yes, but not nearly as much per capita as gays do.  The difference between the two cultures, gay and straight, is that the straights are not building a huge social movement/ fad around Roman Polansky or defending him as the icon of their sexuality/sexual movement.  Meanwhile gays are elevating a child predator as their icon and will defend his legacy on those "disposable teen homeless boys" to the death.

I've actually heard the many defenses of Harvey Milk from the LGBTers here and elsewhere.  Their defense essentially is of Milk, in a nutshell, "Those boys were ruined goods anyway, so Milk was just doing what came naturally to him and anyway, the age of consent should be lowered."  They give a complete pass to the topic of those boys being 

1. Underaged in at least one case we know of

2.  On drugs and incapable of consent

3. Mentally ill

4. The exacerbation of the one minor boy having Milk convince him that he was a "father figure" to him, while also sodomizing him.

All is explained away time and again by LGBTers, excused, exonerated.  And this presents a problem when they want access to the state's, any state's orphans to adopt.  Orphans are our most vulnerable demographic.  Child safety laws don't even require proof to act to protect, only suspicion.  And with the church of LGBT/Harvey Milk, there is PLENTY of suspicion to ACT.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 5, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways.   Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.
> ...




Gosh, I sure hope so...the little woman and I want to start shopping for a rich, older sister wife! Hurry up!


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 5, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Gosh, I sure hope so...the little woman and I want to start shopping for a rich, older sister wife! Hurry up!



Wow...living in San Francisco cloistered in a false society can sure have it's drawbacks.  Paramount of those is the inability to see your own hubris through the eyes of others..

Can I quote you and send your quote on as an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court when it goes to decide on Harvey Milk vs Utah this year?  Pretty please?  Maybe you could type up a defense for Harvey Milks sexual life too that I could add to the Brief?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways.   Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.
> ...



The appellant litigators for Utah will stay far away from polygamy as possible.

The state's defense will be the "best interest of the children."  Look at the front page of the newspaper Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune.

Weak, in my opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2014)

> Paramount of those is the *inability to see your own hubris through the eyes of others..*



Projection.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The appellant litigators for Utah will stay far away from polygamy as possible.
> 
> The state's defense will be the "best interest of the children."  Look at the front page of the newspaper Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune.
> 
> Weak, in my opinion.



People may stay away from polygamy all day long.  But I guarantee you it will be on the minds of each and every single one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.  Guaranteed.  They are charged more than any other court with not bungling stuff up with respect to inadvertently setting precedents the public cannot tolerate.  

Your link to the Utah paper only brings you to an article on skiing.  Can you find the page and link it instead?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2014)

The federal judge's recognition of spiritual plural marriage and co-habitation will be enough to satisfy SCOTUS on polygamy.

Here you go: State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage | The Salt Lake Tribune


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The appellant litigators for Utah will stay far away from polygamy as possible.
> ...



Well I hope they hurry. Julie Andrews is single...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The federal judge's recognition of spiritual plural marriage and co-habitation will be enough to satisfy SCOTUS on polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage | The Salt Lake Tribune



But then your argument can be easily "the federal judge's recognition of spiritual "gay marriage" and co-habitation will be enough to satisfy SCOTUS on "gay marriage".

So, you're either saying that automatically polygamy will be forced upon the 50 states at the same time as "gay marriage" or that both will be categorically denied on the same day and left up to the states to decide.

You can't have it both ways legally Jake, you know that.  The SCOTUS cannot arbitrarily uphold some priveleges for the church of LGBT and at the same time deny those same priveleges to polygamists just because "what they do in bed is weird and icky"..lol..

Seriously dude, get prepared.  Utah is not a slam dunk for the church of LGBT.  It's just not.  Period.  The Harvey Milkers have their work cut out for them.

Edit:  Just read the article on the brief to the 10th Circuit on Utah.  Better hope nobody brings up Harvey Milk.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 6, 2014)

Nope, there is no paradox.  I don't need it either way.  You can look up _Reynolds _and the challenges to it all you want and find nothing to support your case.  The defense's argument is "the best interests of the children".  The Church of LGBT?   The Church of Hetero-fascism with you as priestess.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 6, 2014)

Amendment 3 attorney should step down, senator says | KSL.com


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, there is no paradox.  I don't need it either way.  You can look up _Reynolds _and the challenges to it all you want and find nothing to support your case.  The defense's argument is "the best interests of the children".  The Church of LGBT?   The Church of Hetero-fascism with you as priestess.



So if you had to assign a chance of the church of LGBT winning the Utah case, what percentage of certainty do you have Jake?  20%, 45%, 88%?  Just curious.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, there is no paradox.  I don't need it either way.  You can look up _Reynolds _and the challenges to it all you want and find nothing to support your case.  The defense's argument is "the best interests of the children".  The Church of LGBT?   The Church of Hetero-fascism with you as priestess.
> ...



Good question and I want you to give a % as well.

Is it slam dunk.  We both know that in litigation almost nothing is ever a given.  I doubt your Church of LGBT and Harvey Milk will even be addressed.  The state is not going to attack homosexual marriages as inferior (which is a big mistake, in my opinion), but rely on the argument that a traditional man/and/woman marriage is by far the best way to raise children.  That allows the opportunity for the LGBT side to bring up parenting of any all types: hetero, LGBT, one parent, and so forth.

75%?  I think that is conservative but . . . nothing is a given.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Good question and I want you to give a % as well.
> 
> Is it slam dunk.  We both know that in litigation almost nothing is ever a given.  I doubt your Church of LGBT and Harvey Milk will even be addressed.  The state is not going to attack homosexual marriages as inferior (which is a big mistake, in my opinion), but rely on the argument that a traditional man/and/woman marriage is by far the best way to raise children.  That allows the opportunity for the LGBT side to bring up parenting of any all types: hetero, LGBT, one parent, and so forth.
> 
> 75%?  I think that is conservative but . . . nothing is a given.



You think the Harvey Milk issue won't be a problem for LGBTers when the question of the state of Utah's orphans are in question?  Marriage, as you know, elevates people to a privelege of getting first-choice access to adoptable orphans.  What will adoption agents say to gay couples?  "Sorry, we know you're married but the icon of LGBT is a man who routinely sodomized orphans.." ??  I think that would be setting adoption agencies up for lawsuits while merely exercising their mandate to err on the side of caution to protect the welfare of their wards.

I think that's going to be very much a topic of discussion.  It is the elephant in the living room and if you're going to talk about that elephant, the Supreme Court case is the time to do it when all perks of marriage are on the table up for discussion...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Good question and I want you to give a % as well.
> ...



Nah.  

The appellants have already said that they are not going to address homosexual vs heterosexual, because they know the justices will say both have predators, that that is a criminal matter.  Utah will make the traditional argument for man/women marriage.

Give me a %


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nah.
> 
> The appellants have already said that they are not going to address homosexual vs heterosexual, because they know the justices will say both have predators, that that is a criminal matter.  Utah will make the traditional argument for man/women marriage.
> 
> Give me a %



Oh, yeah see but you're ignoring a critical component of the Harvey Milk issue.  That yes, both gays and straights molest kids.  Just gays have knowingly elevated a child predator as iconic of their sexual group values.  See the difference? 

I think it's a key difference and one that applies to child welfare discussions.  Particularly orphans that, if these Harvey Milk iconizers gain the privelege of marriage, cannot be denied access to them without discriminating against them.  Trouble is, adoption agents are charged with discriminating against applicants as a matter of their job.  So, asking them to ignore that LGBT people emulate a child predator is a miscarriage of their duties to protect children.

It's a sticky legal issue that has to be addressed.  A state has a responsibility to its orphans.   And a mandate from the fed to act pre-emptively to protect children even just upon suspicion but not proof even that they might come to harm..  

So, my percentage of Utah prevailing at the highest level?  85% sure they will.  Especially with all the other exacerbating issues of Jude I and Romans I of the Bible, the 1st Amendment to not go to hell for eternity because of a secular mandate, and the clear langauge in DOMA/Windsor, which the state DID reference to WIN the stay on "gay marriage" that says each state has "unquestioned authority" under the context of the question of gay marriage to a consensus to say yes or no to it.

85-90% in that range...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 7, 2014)

> Cliff Rosky, board chairman for Equality Utah, called the states arguments a "disappointing" rehash of stereotypes and disproved studies about gay people and same-sex parents.
> 
> "The arguments in the states brief are the same arguments that the Supreme Court rejected last summer," Rosky said. In striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the court found that the statute "actually harmed children, instead of protecting them."
> 
> "Amendment 3 has the same affect," Rosky said.



Correct. 

Utahs strategy of defending its un-Constitutional amendment in the context of child welfare will fail. Not only is there no evidence that same-sex couples pose a threat to children, but the fact that opposite-sex couples who are unable to have children are allowed to marry completely destroys the states argument. 

Amendment 3 is predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans, it has neither a rational basis nor a proper legislative end, and is un-Constitutional accordingly.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Good question and I want you to give a % as well.
> ...



The SCOTUS has already mentioned the "kids". You won't like it though...

Justice Kennedy: DOMA Had to Go Because It "Humiliates Tens of Thousands of Children"


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



that same argument could be used in regard to children of polygamist unions, of single people with children, of unmarried couples with children.  That was a specious argument by Kennedy. Children couldn't care less about the governmental status of thier parent's union. What they may care about is the cultural attitude of society in regard to their parents union, but no change in the law will change that.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 7, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Utah&#8217;s &#8216;strategy&#8217; of defending its un-Constitutional amendment in the context of &#8216;child welfare&#8217; will fail. *Not only is there no evidence that same-sex couples pose a &#8216;threat&#8217; to children, but the fact that opposite-sex couples who are unable to have children are allowed to marry completely destroys the state&#8217;s &#8216;argument*.&#8217;
> 
> *Amendment 3 is predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans*, it has neither a rational basis nor a proper legislative end, and is un-Constitutional accordingly.



Not animus friend, common sense:

"Your Honors, I give you Exhibit A" *pulls curtain off large portrait sized exhibit*







"...and your Honors... please accept each a copy of Exhibit B..."  *walks a copy of The Mayor of Castro Street, The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" with key earmarks to each Justice*

"...Your Honors, please turn to page...and page...and page...and page...and page..."

then.

"Your Honors, please examine Exhibit C, which is a law in California, becoming a common tradition in LGBT culture across the nation and the world, which is a requirment for public school children to celebrate the man's political/sexual achievements that you just read in his biography."...

then

"Please now look at Exhibit D..."  *unveils second large portrait*...






"...Oops...sorry...I meant this one.." *reveals next portrait*..






then..

Roll out the child protection laws of Utah, the fed and various other states that, if gay marriage is forced upon the states, would also be facing the same legal catch-22..  Agreed DCraelin, what the Justices should be paying attention to with regards to "whats best for the kids" is their parents belonging to a cult that venerate pedophilia by venerating their messiah who was a pedophile and apologizing for his crimes against kids.  What the Justices should be paying attention to is allowing this cult, inadvertently maybe but potently nevertheless, access to each state's orphans in adoption once they elevate to the top-tier status of being able to adopt via marriage.

And about that middle picture with Sotomayor doing the can can in public on New Year's Eve Bacchanal party in Times Square...televised around the world no less to potentially 100s of millions of viewers..  When your nation's moral foundation and "unbiased justice' degrades to such a degree, your country isn't far behind [see other pictures and my signature].  It's that picture of Sotomayor that caused me to back my 95% certainty Utah will prevail back down to 85%..  cults have a funny way of clouding common sense...

Since a news talk show host outed Elena Kagan as a lesbian, I know with 100% certainty how she will vote.  I'll have to back my percentage down for a Utah victory even further, perhaps under 50% if I see Kennedy doing the Miley Cyrus dance with a shaved down muscle-boy on the Tonight Show's new host debut or something..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



That may ring with Scalia and Alito and Thomas, perhaps.  None fo the others.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 7, 2014)

Sigh.  Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sigh.  Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.



I like how you give my entire post below a complete pass, not addressing the compelling issues of child endangerment and endangerment to justice itself, as if "all this talk of Harvey Milk factually and objectively sodomizing orphaned teen boys on drugs, is silly, irrelevent.".  You pretend not to notice that the church of LGBT has appointed that man as their messiah.  You pretend not to notice the relevance of that action to child welfare and a state's obligations to protect its orphans even just from suspected harm that might come their way...

Try addressing the specifics instead of *sighing*.  *Sighing* isn't going to be the Harvey Milker's approach at the Big Hearing this year, is it?  I assume they have rebuttal planned?



> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Utahs strategy of defending its un-Constitutional amendment in the context of child welfare will fail. *Not only is there no evidence that same-sex couples pose a threat to children, but the fact that opposite-sex couples who are unable to have children are allowed to marry completely destroys the states argument*.
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 7, 2014)

Jake, let me ask you this specific question if the previous post has too many questions for you and overwhelms you to the point of "sighing"..

What percentage of certainty would you say that Justice Sotomayor will vote to denounce Utah's right to set the parameters of marriage for itself?

Remember, she is catholic, presumably, so there's that factor to consider even if she obviously does do the can-can in public on national media at a drunken bacchanal with Miley Cyrus as her opening act..

Percentage?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Really? You don't think it matters to kids if their parents are married?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sigh.  Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.



Correct.

It's irrelevant and unsubstantiated.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 7, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh.  Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
> ...



I disagree.  I say the connection between the sexual pervert of orphaned teen boys on drugs has many many deep and established legal connections between his sexual orientation and the LGBT movement.

1. A law in California requiring school kids to set aside a day to celebrate his political career as an "openly gay man" [see my signature for that definition more closely]

2. Over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Mexico and Canada pooling their resources to get a US postage commemorative stamp with his mug and rainbow "USA" at the top.

3. Milk's biography detailing the sex crimes he committed against teen boys on drugs, his fervor for rampant gay promiscuity and LACK of committment/open criticism for committed relationships.

4. That not one gay person I've ever talked to or debated with has denounced what he did to those orphaned teen boys on drugs.  They line up in unison to defend those felonies and become combative and defensive, *or dismissive *when asked to discuss their specifics.  Often they fall back as a last resort saying "the age of consent should be lowered"...which is bad enough in itself, but exacerbated by the fact that "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" [page 180 in his biography] means he was also drug raping them at any age, under or over 18, in California San Francisco where his behaviors went unremarked and unprosecuted despite the fact that they were and are felonies still...

I'd say the documentation linking the sexual lifestyle of Harvey Milk to the cult of LGBT is extremely well laid and extensive.  So much so that to not talk about it would be collusion to put children in danger of anyone espousing Harvey Milk as the "embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world" [as it is written verbatum in California law: Bill Text - SB-572 Harvey Milk Day: official designation. ]


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 7, 2014)

>


Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief



Anyone find Harvey Milk mentioned?


>>>>


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I dont think it matters to them a bit,... it matters to some younger kids I suppose if they are together, but no one is pulling gay couples apart.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
> ...



Yes, in a manner of speaking:



> Page 16:
> 
> Utah adoption *law similarly allows adoption only to "adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state," and does not permit adoption by a "single adult," id. 78B-6-117(2), if that person "is cohabitating in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state*." Id. 78B-6-117(3); see also id. 78B-6-102(4).  For adoptions of children in the custody of the Division of Child and Family Services, preference is given to "a man and woman who are married to each other." Id. 78B-6-117(4); see also id. 62A-4a-607(1)(b)...



The part in bold is the important part to remember when thinking "Harvey Milk worshippers"..  Pay _especial attention _to the bold underlined bit...

The conclusion:



> Even if the Court were to apply heightened scrutiny--as the district court suggested in _dicta_, Utah's chosen definition is still well within its constitutional authority.  Besides avoiding risks to religious freedom and civic peace, Utah's decision to retain that definition substantially advances at least three distinct State interests that are not only legitimate, but important and compelling.
> 
> First, maintaining the man-woman definition helps prevent further erosion of the traditional concept of marriage as being principally a child-centered institution, one focused first and foremost on the welfare of children rather than the emotional interests of adults.  See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting) (discussing distinction between "conjugal" and "consent-based" views of marriage).  A society can have but one understanding of marriage:  It is either a uniquely man-woman institution, or it is not.  Because man-woman unions are unique in their ability to produce children, maintaining the man-woman definition reinforces the child-centric view of marriage.  And by reinforcing that understanding, the State gently encourages parents to routinely sacrifice their own interests to the legitimate needs and interests of their children.  Given its enormous benefits to children generally, the State has an important and compelling interest in encouraging selfless parenting.
> 
> ...



Of note and especially applicable to Prop 8 in California:



> First, *lower federal courts do not have the option of departure from binding precedent simply because they believe it has been undercut by later "doctrinal developments."  Although that possibility had been suggested in later decisions, the Supreme Court eliminated that option  in Rodriquez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989).  That decistion held in no uncertain terms:  "If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions," lower courts "should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions*."  Id. at 484.  There is no doubt that Baker "directly controls" here.



In simple terms that means, "if lower court or doctrinal developments occur that seem to or do contradict the Big Court's clear decision on the specific issue, the SCOTUS interpretation is the one that binds and the conflicting lower determinations fail."  This is the very unsettling part that applies to rogue officials in California flipping the bird to the Supreme Court's decision finding each state's consensus has "unquestioned authority" on the matter of gay marriage approval or disapproval.  At the same moment, Kamala Harris and Gov. Brown et al have flipped the middle finger to the Supreme Court AND their own state initiative system.  They are actually guilty of treason in its truest definition..
Clarifying a state's right, after the discussion in the Brief clearly argued how the 14th DOES NOT apply to gay marriage:



> Second, and more fundamentally, Windsor did not undercut Baker.  Indeed, the Windsor  majority expressly disclaimed any intention to reach the issue decided in Baker, stating that its "opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages" already authorized by state law.  133 S. Ct. at 2696.  That is why the majority did not even address Baker--much less criticize it--, which the Court surely would have done had it intended to overrule it.  Similarly, neither Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), nor Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), addressed the constitutionality of state marriage laws, and neither mentions Baker.
> 
> Nor is there any inconsistency between the Baker and Windsor legal analysis.   Windsor invalidated DOMA 3 because New York conferred an "equal dignity" on same-sex couples that the federal statute "displace[d]" by "treating those persons as living in marriage less respected than others."  133 S. Ct. at 2696.  In concluding that DOMA "injure[d] those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity," id. (emphasis added), the Court did not create a free-standing substantive due process right for same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...




So no.

Thanks


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Did you read the part about only married people get to adopt in Utah?  Ponder that and the Harvey Milk issue as I lined out here..  Keywords "top tier" to be able to adopt.  And, once married, non-discrimination.  Without a clear definition of 'class' for LGBT people we have only their culture to rely on.  Enter, their messiah Harvey Milk and his child sex offenses defended by the LGBT culture.

Problem city at the adoption agency, friend.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Ya, I did read it.  You've gone on-and-on about how it was going to be "Harvey Milk v. Utah" - you were wrong.

I did notice that you attempted to deflect to adoption.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sigh.  Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.


Ok, but do you think that he shouldn't be mentioned, and why do you think that ? Is he fair game in such a legal battle, and this because of what Sil & others have been making their very thoughtful case about ?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
> ...


Should he be mentioned ? Tell me watcher, just what do you think ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh.  Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
> ...



(1) Sil has created a strawman and then knocked it down: the Church of LGBT.  Milk is irrelevant to the Utah's appeal.

(2) Where_r_My_Keys was arguing that Natural Law (though he would not admit it because he would have got smacked with Holmes' discussion) instead of the Constitution

(3) Schaar, the lead attorney of Utah's team, has stated clearly that "the best interest of the children" is what they will argue and that will not litigate on homosexual marriage at all


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...




I'm not the one that has been making post after post in thread after thread that the case is "Harvey Milk v. Utah" and that Milk will be the focus of the case.

Harvey Milk is totally irrelevant to the issue.

The reason that Sil keeps harping on Harvey Milk is classic (depending on your perspective) "Poison the well fallacy" or an attempt at the "broad brush fallacy", take your pick depending on perspective.  

Poison the Well is based on the use of Milk as an attempt to poison the discussion about consenting adults because Milk may have had sex with a minor.  Kind of like thinking no females should be teachers because Mary Letourneau had sex with an underage student.

Broad Brush fallacy because the intent to to paint consenting adult homosexuals as being the same has Harvey Milk.​

If the argument was tied in court the individual would be laughed out of the proceedings.  The AG's office was smart enough to know this and you will not find Milk mentioned in the States brief.



>>>>


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 7, 2014)

Didn't bother to read this thread .... but who cares?  Two gays who love eatch other so much already think they are married. .. and well the legal thing is just a piece of paper.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You still didn't give your opinion on whether he should be mentioned or not.. What say you ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



The reason nobody is answering your ridiculous question is because...well, it's ridiculous. 

I just read an announcement about a town choosing their  poet laureate. Do you think they should bring up the fact that Edgar Allen Poe slept with his severely underage cousin?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


So you think that he *shouldn't be *mentioned if he could be mentioned in the case ? Like Sil says, they have elevated him to icon status, even made a U.S. Stamp for him. Now are they just the same as or just like the Muslims in the case of extremism, where as will they separate themselves from this cat or do they say nothing and become aids or enablers instead of a people whom disagree, whether it be with Muslim extremism on the part of the Muslims to either agree or disagree or with the Gay's on the part of this Harvey Milk worshipping based on the accepting of in which she has pointed out here ?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Why yes, and you think not maybe ? And if he did then he should be watered down as to his impact or contributions in which he made, because who wants to think anything good of such a man if did what you said ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Neither Edgar Allen Poe's nor Harvey Milk's contributions to society or poetry have anything to do with marriage equality so the question is, why do you harp on it as though it does?

Do you know what a Poet Laureate is?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




Harvey Milk is an individual, who in my opinion should have been arrested and charged with sex with a minor.  However a politician from four decades ago who liked younger boys has no bearing what-so-ever on whether two consenting adults should be treated equally under the law because there is no valid government interest in promoting invidious and capricious laws which target them for discrimination.

Her "Milk" this and "Milk" that is nothing more than a logical fallacy used to try to poison - what otherwise - can be an open and honest discussion.

It would be like saying the because Jerry Lee Lewis had sex with his 13-year old first cousin that all heterosexual should be banned from married because an older man (he was in his 20's at the time) had sex with a 13 year old girl and because he back an icon of society and even inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame.

Neither makes any sense and has no bearing on a discussion about consenting adults.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Either you have a moral standing on these matters, issues or things (or) you do not, I mean it's just as simple as that really. Jerry Lewis is still the talk around town as are many others as well. They are the talk because of how he (in the matter you mentioned) did what he did, and people still don't see it as right and never will, but hollywood and the government over rides the people's thinking and/or views on such matters or things more so than ever now, and they have been doing this in the peoples face for quite sometime now. 

It is the government controlled by factions who is now aiding in the lifting up or iconizing bad characters for whom would have never been lifted up in the most of society as was found here in the past. 

Welcome to the future of America that is now controlled by hollywood first, and then the strong arm of the government who will back hollywood up next against the good will of the people and their families.

People who do these things and/or uphold deplorable things in this nation, have since become a problem for many in this nation, along with their thinking on such matters, and the only reason they (the supporters of such things) are getting away with it, is because the young folks have been indoctronated so precisely, and by design all due to a bombardment of hollywood influencing along with the government who enforces such things through a blanketing PC enviroment created, that there is not much chance for reversing such things it seems anymore. Does it make things that are empowered right ? Nope, but the people live in fear now, and so onward it all goes.  It's just mind numbing anymore really.  It all suggest that everyone now allow or tolerate all sorts of weird and bad things, and the bottom line is, (ha) it's all just because they say so where choice is no longer an option in such matters or opinions as is given by the people or for the people anymore. 

Many things are forced upon the good citizens as being *"right"* now, even though they wouldn't have ever been tolerated along the moral lines of thinking that many understood as being *"right"* in the past.

Good Luck America, because your entering into the twighlight zone of government control and indoctronation by such control.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Tell me what a poet what ever you mentioned is, and I will answer you with the same moral standing again in which I use on every other question, issue and/or opinion upon which is given here. Now don't try and deflect with something that may be a side issue to what is being spoken about here in context of, but do teach me something upon your point being made if you will. I am always one for learning something new in life.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 8, 2014)

Neither the Bible nor Natural Law has anything, beagle9, to do with this case.

I know you wish it did.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> The reason nobody is answering your ridiculous question is because...well, it's ridiculous.
> 
> I just read an announcement about a town choosing their  poet laureate. Do you think they should bring up the fact that Edgar Allen Poe slept with his severely underage cousin?



Edgar Allen Poe was not venerated for his sexuality.  Harvey Milk's sexuality is _integral_ to his celebrated status by LGBTs.  Therein lies the difference.  It's the _reason_ Milk is iconized.

And when that reason is challenged, the church of LGBT jumps rabidly to his defense while giving his child-victims, at least one of which he officiated as a "father figure" to, not so much as a mention or whit of consideration.

Given that Milk targeted orphaned teen boys specifically; that this was and is "his sexuality", I'd say it poses a huge problem when considering those faithful to Harvey Milk for accessing adoptable orphans through marriage.  

It is _absolutely_ fair game.

It took tireless work of over 60 LGBT sects in Mexico, the US and Canada to finally get this stamp issued:


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 8, 2014)

If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither the Bible nor Natural Law has anything, beagle9, to do with this case.
> 
> I know you wish it did.


You don't know what I wish, but it is my thoughts that you wish you did. I am just giving Sil a listen to, and a fair shake at her findings and linking's upon such things that she has found in her studies. Everyone else ought to be doing the same, but due to their personal biases, associations or actual lifestyles lived in life, they can't see the forest for the tree's anymore.  This is based upon anything that is said now or is being based upon facts and statistics, or even upon the majority's view's upon what is being debated and/or conversed about in these forums. People should keep an open mind on the issues coming in from both directions as is being looked at, but you see how that is very hard for some to do in life. Consideration is becoming a far and outdated thing in todays society now, and it is being replaced with pure unadulterated intolerance of any other views instead.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

Matthew said:


> If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?


Does *ANYONE* getting married to who they choose, now cause smaller government or bigger government to happen as a result of ? Now that is a question to be pondered now isn't it ?

Wonder what happened to Civil Unions, and why wasn't that good enough ? Didn't that give them the very governmental things in which was being held back from them finally, and this as far as them being together in this way legally ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9, don't rephrase the question.

The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.

Civil Unions did not work because too many on the far right would not let them be enacted in law.

Your sophistry is both elementary and pathetic.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9, don't rephrase the question.
> 
> The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.
> 
> ...


Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 8, 2014)

Hey Beagle, what you are saying is scaring Jake so he is resorting to beating you up with verbal abuse.  Instead of having him succeed in driving you off, because you are bringing up good points, just use his abuse as a litmus indicator of how much your reasoning is making him uncomfortable.  And forget about "belonging" or "fitting in" in this discussion.  There's no time for that for warriors of words...lol..  Just write and ignore the verbal grenades.  As they increase in frequency, so indicates your accuracy in argument.



beagle9 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?
> ...



You bring up an excellent point Beagle.  Let's look at the excerpt from the Brief from the last page here:



> Page 16:
> 
> *Utah adoption law similarly allows adoption only to "adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state," and does not permit adoption by a "single adult," id. 78B-6-117(2), if that person "is cohabitating in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state*." Id. 78B-6-117(3); see also id. 78B-6-102(4). For adoptions of children in the custody of the Division of Child and Family Services, preference is given to "a man and woman who are married to each other." Id. 78B-6-117(4); see also id. 62A-4a-607(1)(b)... State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief



Here's why civil unions won't do for LGBTs in most states: They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt.

Then: look at my signature.  It's simple.  Marriage affords them top-tier access to orphaned kids where they no longer can be screened as "non-married" people.  In fact, and this is a true and sickening story, I know a pair of gay men who officiated as "married" in order to lure in a young underaged teen boy who is their real sexual interest.  They didn't officially adopt him.  But it was because they were holding themselves out as a committed couple that the community stood back and did nothing as they took this homeless boy in.  They have turned that boy, who I knew personally and saw growing up was chasing girls before all this happened, and "turned" him into a grotesquely sexually obsessed "twink" that they take turns sodomizing.

The now young man in his early 20s is such a sexually obsessed mess that even his gay friends say the situation is out of control.  The two men who "adopted" him are the same two I've talked about before where the one who is officating as the actual male in the couple was staring at my female friends breasts the entire time they were at a social event; if any of you remember me talking about that before.  Where his over-acting femme gay buddy kept trying to body block his eye contact with my friend's breasts... 

There is so much going on with that situation that is not "born that way" that it's hard to know where to begin.  That's why I call LGBT cult because it properly is.  That boy was not gay.  He was made gay as we all watched over the years.  He was stalked, chosen, molested and "turned" to be gay by two adult gay men officiating as "committed gay men".  If it is of any interest to anyone reading here, the two men are much MUCH older than the boy.  They are in their 50s and he is in his very early 20s now.  There is at least a 30 year age difference between the "married gay men" and their young "turned" "twink"..

I think any court considering the church of LGBT for marriage ought to take a really good look at the mental health of children of those relationships or adopted into those relationships.  Not just a cursory, photo-op look.  Not a look sanctioned by the gay-owned APA or its sychophant organizations.  This needs to be a special multi-national, multi-paneled group of well-screened objective researchers and specialists from the worlds' most prestigious outfits.  Have them study the linguistics of LGBT, the words specifically "to turn" and so on, and then make a determination if this culture of people were born that way or were "turned" that way by some environmental influence after birth.

THEN we can make a determination if they are safe around kids.  Otherwise all we have to go on now is:



> *The Mayo Clinic 2007*
> 
> One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...





> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., *chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control *and Prevention, Atlanta...





> http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
> Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
> James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> *Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec*, H3G 1M8 Canada


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 8, 2014)

bear513 said:


> Didn't bother to read this thread .... but who cares?  Two gays who love eatch other so much already think they are married. .. and well the legal thing is just a piece of paper.



A number of state governments clearly care enough to use their considerable resources to deny American citizens their civil liberties.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?




In the early 2000's many of the states that passed Civil Marriage State Constitutional bans also tied in Civil Union bans:

For example Virginia:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​
And as another Utah:

Article I, Section 29.
[Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, maybe recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.​

Then of course there was the case of Washington State and Referendum 74.  The legislature had passed Senate Bill 6239 which granted same-sex couples Civil Unions equal to Civil Marriage in all respects, attempting to make the two different entities equal before the law.  Social Conservatives were outraged on such a measure and placed a repeal of the new law on a referendum to repeal it and prevent it's implementation.  Why you might ask?  The reason was it was to much like marriage.  (Disclaimer: The referendum failed to pass but got 46.3% of the vote.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9, don't rephrase the question.
> ...



I am not going to argue with you when the answers are common knowledge.  And Sil's filibabble is left unread.

Gays I have known (and this is only anecdotal) said they would have accepted civil unions at one time, but far right intransigence fouled the water.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 8, 2014)

"They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."

Silhouette, are you applying your insinuation to the LGBT community on this Board?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

The law is predicated on objective facts, evidence, and what can be proven in a court of law.  

That you and others fear and hate gay Americans is neither fact nor evidence; that your animus toward gay Americans is motivated solely by subjective moral dogma is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and appropriately so.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 8, 2014)

Just so.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Neither the Bible nor Natural Law has anything, beagle9, to do with this case.
> ...



More nonsense. 

Youre at liberty to hate gay Americans; no one is being intolerant of your hatred, nor is anyone seeking to subject you to some punitive measure as a consequence of your hate. 

But you are not at liberty to seek to codify your hate, by denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."
> 
> Silhouette, are you applying your insinuation to the LGBT community on this Board?



Nice try asshole.  Stick to the topic.  Defend the points put to you and stop trying to badger people into non-existence.  Either win your argument on its merits or go home and hang your sorry "lawyer" head in shame.  Only speak here as if you would in a court room, understand?  Bullying the opposition ain't gonna wash when the chips are down..

I notice you haven't answered my question about the percentage of likelihood that Sotomayor will vote down Utah's rights to determine marriage for itself.  Care to reveal that number?  Remember, there are conflicting issues with Sotomayor.  On the one hand she is presumably catholic and has read the gravity of sin in Jude 1 and Romans 1...and knows her pivotal position in human history to be in paramount defiance of those passages.  On the other hand she was doing the can-can at a bacchanal on New Year's Eve at Time's Square, on national TV with Miley Cyrus as her opening act.  Do you think she is a "name only christian" or does Utah stand a chance with her?

I personally think her behavior is the most reprehensible form of disrespect for the US Constitution in any public official since the dawn of our nation.  But then again, I'm equipped with perspective that few seem to have these days it seems...  Sotomayor, IMHO should be impeached for what she did.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?
> ...



Those who seek to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights by enacting measures designed to prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law indeed increase the size and authority of government to interfere in our private lives. 

As for civil unions, theyre a hateful contrivance by those hostile to the civil liberties of same-sex couples, where separate but equal is just as offensive to the Constitution concerning gay Americans as any other class of persons likewise discriminated against.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Nice rhetoric pal...blah blah blah blah blah "hateful" blah blah blah blah "bigot" blah blah blah blah "homophobe" blah blah blah...

Defend your elevation of Harvey Milk to LGBT icon.  That's the type of argument to be had in court.  The "poor little old church of LGBT" argument is going to fall flat on its face this time I believe.  Explain Harvey Milk.  Start doing your homework if you want access to adoptable kids via marriage...  Great place to start would be Milk's biography.  Or maybe that's a terrible place to start?  Gee, I don't envy you..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9, don't rephrase the question.
> ...



Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as the law exists now; to seek to contrive alternative marriage in an effort to assuage the fear and hate of those hostile to gay Americans is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where such alternative marriage seeks only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 8, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."
> ...



Your casuistry undermines your *filibabble*.

(1) Your LBGT meme has no merit.

(2) I have answered your question about Sotomayor, so, no, Sil, you don't get "just once more."

(3) The Bible, which gives you no authority, has no standing in front of SCOTUS.

(4) You are entitled to your opinion, which has no standing before SCOTUS.

(5) Only speak here on the terms of the case, understand? 

Understand, Sil, your sophistry had better not include any insinuation.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 9, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9, don't rephrase the question.
> ...



I say no too. Civil unions would be great...if they weren't just for the gays. Now, if anyone who wanted a civil marriage had to get a civil union, that would be just fine but having one thing for straights and one thing for gays...well, that violates the Constitution.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 9, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Here's why civil unions won't do for LGBTs in most states: They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt.



Yes, actually we can. Utah does not allow adoption by singles, only married couples and Mississippi does not allow adoption by gay couples, only gay singles. 

In most states, whether gay adoption is legal is made on a case-by-case basis by a judge. However, there are 16 states that definitely allow joint gay adoptions (when a same-sex couple jointly petition for adoption): Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Other states allow second parent adoption by law. Second parent adoption is when one person adopts the child of his partner. These states include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

Still, people have successfully done second parent adoptions in the following 16 states as well: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.

The most restrictive states are Mississippi and Utah, where same sex couples cannot legally adopt at all. Gay people in Florida used to not be able to adopt, jointly or singly, but a Florida district court ruled.​
LGBT Adoption Statistics

So "the gheys" are adopting the kids the straights threw away in almost all the states already there Sil.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 9, 2014)

Sil, what does this mean: "They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."

Do you include heterosexual marriages as well?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your casuistry undermines your *filibabble*.
> 
> (1) Your LBGT meme has no merit.
> 
> ...



1. It isn't *my* LGBT meme.  Are you suggesting I created the term LGBT and sustained it all the decades it's been in popular use by its members?  Try not to insult people's intelligence here Jake.

2. I'm sorry, I missed where you gave a percentage of likelihood that Sotomayor would uphold Utah's rights to determine marriage.  Could you repost just the percentage number for just her?

3. I'm not sure it's the Bible that would be in question to have standing, but rather the 1st Amendment to adhere to the Bible, which does have constitutional standing at the Supreme Court.  The state or the fed cannot require christians to commit mortal sin [Jude 1, Romans 1 for failing to earnestly contend to not enable homosexual cultures] as a matter of law.  

4. My opinions may or may not have standing depending on their merit, not that they came from little ole' me...  Your ad hominem is noted.  The substance of what I say and not that it came from me is at question here.

5. I mentioned that because you are constantly siderailing the topics you engage in with insults at other posters.  Which is against the rules.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 9, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Says you in your interpretation of, but is that the consensus interpretation among the people, and as well the government looking back over time, or is it just something that is new and thought of now, wherefore if it is said enough, then maybe it will stick, and that is the hopes of those who are engaged in such re-intrepting of the constitution in order to fit their needs and wants these days.


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The entire problem is a Federal tax code that rewards marriage



TODAY : Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages "to the greatest extent possible under the law."

The move affects how millions of Americans interact with their federal government, including bankruptcy cases, prison visitation rights, survivor benefits for police officers and firefighters killed on the job, and the legal right to refuse to testify to incriminate a spouse.

I'm not certain about its implications regarding IRS Issues - have to wait till Monday I guess


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 9, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



No. 

The issue has nothing to do with re-interrupting the Constitution or fitting anyones needs. 

The fact is that same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts; in California, for example, same-sex couples access the very same marriage law as opposite-sex couples, thus proving that fact. 

Since its ratification the 14th Amendment has always required states to afford their residents  citizens of the United States  equal protection of (access to) the law; by disallowing same-sex couples access to a law theyre eligible to participate in, states that do so are in violation of the 14th Amendment. 

The issue, therefore, concerns states not obeying the Constitution, having nothing to do with re-interrupting the Founding Document, nor fitting anyones needs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 9, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your casuistry undermines your *filibabble*.
> ...



Almost all continued *filibabbling, Sil.*.

If you do not want to commit want you consider 'mortal sin', don't marry someone who is your own sex, and (2) do not vote for marriage equality.

Your insinuated *ad hom *is your mere projection for what you cannot say without the consequences.  That's your problem, so be nice.  

I neither insulted you, nor have I derailed the OP.  I have clearly answered your arguments, as have others, over and over again.  So, Sil, I have every right to let you know that "no, not once more, Sil, it's been answered."


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 9, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> TODAY : Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages "to the greatest extent possible under the law."



Hmm... "to the greatest extent possible under the law." eh?  

*flips back through DOMA/Windsor again, puts on spectacles, reads all the print more closely*

OK.  There may be a couple of ways to interpret that...

I wonder if this is in response to Utah's brief that mentions how nothing below the US Supreme Court may defy its order, including lower court rulings or more recently [defiantly] enacted policy?  I mean, technically, if Holder pushes federal [all 50 states mandated to comply] IRS recognition for gay marriage, say in California where gay marriage is and always has been illegal according to DOMA/Windsor, then he is actually in contempt of the US Supreme Court by creating a loophole by which state's determination doesn't count... as scholars understand DOMA and the Court's reach and power.  Holder was attempting to override the US Supreme Court's determination that gay marraige is up to each state to ratify via consensus.

If the IRS gives marital breaks to illegally "married" gay couples from California, will they be ripping off the People?  The US Attorney General cannot be operating in contempt of any state government's duly enacted laws, nor the US Supreme Court determination.  He could lose his job.

Jake, percentage that Sotomayor will vote to uphold Utah's right to determine marriage?  Still haven't seen that number from you.  Closer to 20%, 40% 60% maybe?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> If you do not want to commit want you consider 'mortal sin', don't marry someone who is your own sex, and (2) do not vote for marriage equality.



It's not all as easy as that Jake.  Enabling gay marriage goes well beyond the vote.  Think of gay wedding cakes, gays demanding christian photographers do their event..  gays demanding equal access to adoptable children from christian orphanages [of which most of them are]...[see my signature]

Hey, wait a minute, you APPROVE of the vote or state consensus in gay marriage?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 9, 2014)

Here's a quote from the Holder Speech:



> "In every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said in excerpts of the speech released in advance.
> 
> A written memo to department employees will follow on Monday. It will "formally instruct all department employees to give *lawful* same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law," according to the excerpts.. U.S. Justice Department to expand rights of gay married couples | Reuters



If I was interviewing Holder, my first question would be if he means to extend these priveleges to couples that were "gay married' in California after the first proposition effectively banning gay marriage passed way back when [the one before Prop 8].

Because if he means to extend those priveleges to those particular people, he would be in contempt of the US Supreme Court's Windsor/DOMA Decision: [same reuters' link]



> Perkins noted that while the Supreme Court last year required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them, the justices were "conspicuously silent on the status of such couples when they reside in a state which considers them unmarried."
> 
> "*The Obama administration's haste to nevertheless recognize such unions in every state actually runs counter to the Windsor decision's emphasis on the federal government's obligation to defer to state definitions of marriage*," he added, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Windsor case.



Essentially, gays and gay allies in high places want their cake and to eat it too.  ie: gays are perfectly fine with the fed being involved in marriage determination and recognition as long as it favors gay marriage.  But if the fed wants to put restrictions on that [DOMA] then suddenly gays have a problem with the fed meddling in the definition of marriage.  Either the US Supreme Court Found last Summer that gay marriage is up to the States; or it found that gay marriage is up to Eric Holder.

Which do you suppose it is?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 9, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




Says the SCOTUS when they ruled separate but equal unconstitutional. Look it up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 9, 2014)

&#8220;Jake, percentage that Sotomayor will vote to uphold Utah's right to determine marriage?&#8221;

I gave it when you first asked; go look it up.

&#8220;It's not all as easy as that Jake. Enabling gay marriage goes well beyond the vote.&#8221; 

That will be up to legislation and subsequent judicial review.

&#8220;Hey, wait a minute, you APPROVE of the vote or state consensus in gay marriage?&#8221;

I approve of any federal or state legislative action that meets 14th Amendment parameters.

And, by the by, Holder is not on review; the State of Utah&#8217;s Amendment 3 is on review.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> I approve of any federal or state legislative action that meets 14th Amendment parameters.
> 
> And, by the by, Holder is not on review; the State of Utahs Amendment 3 is on review.



There is not one guarantee for marriage priveleges or driving priveleges or any other state-interest privelege in the 14th Amendment.  There is no sweeping mandate for 13 year olds to be able to marry in all 50 states, nor polygamists, nor members of the church of LGBT.

Sorry.

Eric Holder may very well be "on review" if he keeps up his defiant, tyrannical and contemptuous disregard for States' rights and the binding Decisions of the US Supreme Court...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 9, 2014)

Only your opinion, Sil, on how the 14th is to be interpreted.

Sorry.

Holder "on review" has nothing to do with Amendment 3 in the 10th Circuit Court or SCOTUS.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Is not being separate, and all being equal as with all things pertaining to man and his ways upon the earth ((right)) or the ((right)) way to look at all things in this way ? Maybe each case should still be judged upon it's own separate merits and/or unique circumstances, and lets just stop with this blanketing of everything in order to fit everything whether it be evil and/or good together up under one and/or the same roof. We are not yet beyond this world where the lion shall lay down with man in peace, and evil is still in this world as we all know it to be, so we should always consider that evil as bad, and we should separate from it instead of embrace it. PERIOD!


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 10, 2014)

The Scotus has made some huge mistakes over time, and now this nation, and it's people are paying for it badly.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 10, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is a textbook definition of separate but equal. The "right" way would be civil unions for all. Then the "marriage is sacred" people will STFU 'cause nobody but churches will use "marriage".


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 10, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> The Scotus has made some huge mistakes over time, and now this nation, and it's people are paying for it badly.



While that might be the case in some instances, this isn't one of them. Nobody will have to "pay" now that gays are legally marrying. Gays have been marrying in MA for a decade now. Any flash floods?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is a textbook definition of separate but equal. The "right" way would be civil unions for all. Then the "marriage is sacred" people will STFU 'cause nobody but churches will use "marriage".


Getting your toe in the door to break the law is not the way you win your case.  Marriage is different from civil unions.  In Utah, people in civil unions are considered single.  Only married people in Utah can adopt children and this is perhaps the one aspect between civil unions and marriage that set them apart.

I know the church of LGBT thinks you're inching closer and closer to orphaned children. [see my signature] but you may just have that door slammed shut in your face in Utah.  And for good reason.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 10, 2014)

Such a church of LGBT exists only in your head, Sil.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Getting your toe in the door to break the law is not the way you win your case.  Marriage is different from civil unions.  In Utah, people in civil unions are considered single.  Only married people in Utah can adopt children and this is perhaps the one aspect between civil unions and marriage that set them apart.




Actually according to Utah Code 78B-6-117 single people can adopt.


It may not be as easy, but yes single people can be an adoptive parent in Utah.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Such a church of LGBT exists only in your head, Sil.



LGBT has:

1. A messiah, enshrined in law no less: Harvey Milk

2. They evangelize: CONSTANTLY [gay pride parades, gay days at Disney], innuendo in nearly every comment they make.

3. They punish heretics [they have derogatory term for heretic: Anne Heche]

4. They seek to abolish other religions insisting their own is paramount: [requiring christians to enable their lifestyle when christians doing so is a mortal sin].

5. They seem unnaturally keen on bending the minds of very young children to their ilk: California law requiring kids to celebrate their messiah's sexual/political accomplishments [see my signature].

6.  There has been a sharp rise in boys ages 13-24 coming down with HIV just since the heavy duty evangelizing has been given the green light in media and law.  ie: it appears the numbers of their ranks are expanding..

How are they not a cult again?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 10, 2014)

Maybe Seawytch will answer the question about Sotomayor then.  Seawytch, what do you think the likelihood of Sotomayor voting against Utah's right to determine marriage in their state?

50% likely?  70%?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 10, 2014)

While I'm waiting for Seawytch's answer to the Sotomayor question, here's the LA Times rendition of what the latest is on the appeal from Utah:



> Late Monday night, Utah filed its opening argument with the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It argued that Shelby had erred by not giving enough weight to the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision that states had a right to define marriage, and Utah contended that the federal government cannot interfere with its decision-making authority.
> 
> Utah&#8217;s arguments call for a permitted &#8220;diversity of outcomes&#8221; rather than a &#8220;uniform national answer&#8221; on marriage practices, the 120-page brief says.
> 
> ...



That right there is the religion vs religion angle.  And it's a good one.  When two religions square off, the one with the majority vote rules in the secular world.  It is up to each religion to sell itself to the general public to win a majority rule.

That's how democracy works.  Gays can put a measure on the ballot in Utah trying to legalize LGBT marriage.  But parties in Utah can also do things like run ads of Harvey Milk's bio just prior to that vote.  Then gays can run ads touting the defense of Harvey Milk and their cultural values.  Then, an informed public can cast the best vote possible to govern themselves with.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Such a church of LGBT exists only in your head, Sil.
> ...



All of your points can and do apply to hetero-fascist cults as well, religious and secular, that search for and to exploit orphans and minors.

But there is no Church of LGBT.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 10, 2014)

"When two religions square off, the one with the majority vote rules in the secular world. It is up to each religion to sell itself to the general public to win a majority rule."

Jacksonian majority dominance cannot overrule minority rights.

Tis what tis.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 10, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Maybe Seawytch will answer the question about Sotomayor then.  Seawytch, what do you think the likelihood of Sotomayor voting against Utah's right to determine marriage in their state?
> 
> 
> 
> 50% likely?  70%?




Anti gay marriage laws will go down 5-4, maybe even 6-3. Roberts is young and has a legacy to consider.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Anti gay marriage laws will go down 5-4, maybe even 6-3. Roberts is young and has a legacy to consider.



"legacy",   Roberts has already poisoned his legacy with a convoluted opinion on Obamacare/Romneycare, Citizens united, and I believe he was also involved in the KELO case.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So, on the one hand you admit that what the LGBTers are up to appears to be cult activity.

On the other hand you conclude that therefore, "LGBT isn't a cult"...?..  



Seawytch said:


> Anti gay marriage laws will go down 5-4, maybe even 6-3. *Roberts is young and has a legacy to consider*.



What exactly does that mean?  A legacy of fear/LGBT retaliation should he vote for Utah?  Or a legacy of supporting adoptable-orphan endangerment by ignoring compelling evidence that suggests LGBT is a cult instead of "born that way"; and a cult that has a messiah who ...well...just look at my signature...?


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 10, 2014)

Irrespective of sexual orientation it's clear that some in this thread have serious mental disorders.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 10, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Anti gay marriage laws will go down 5-4, maybe even 6-3. Roberts is young and has a legacy to consider.
> ...




Yes, legacy. You may not like it, but gay equality is the Civil Rights movement of today. How is opposition to civil rights viewed by history?


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



This isnt anything near the civil rights movement.

Gore Vidal, a gay writer, said he couldn't care less about gay marriage.

A Professor Altman, I believe a prominent gay activist from Australia, called gay-marriage "self-indulgent crap" that diverted attention away from more important issues.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 10, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




There is no single civil rights movements. 

Wow..two gay folks aren't interested in being married. Guess we gotta scrap the whole thing now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 10, 2014)

_So, on the one hand you admit that what the LGBTers are up to appears to be cult activity.

On the other hand you conclude that therefore, "LGBT isn't a cult"...?.. _

Write it correctly that you (Silhouette) think it is a cult activity but will not apply the same standard to the hetero-fascists who have access to orphans.

So your logic leads to (1) no one should be able to marry and (2) no children should ever be born because (3) adults, whether homo or hetero, have access to children.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 10, 2014)

Write it correctly eh Jake?  OK, here's the quote from our conversation.  Looks to me like you were calling LGBT a cult.  I understand the freudian slip; whether or not you meant to say it..



> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Yes, legacy. You may not like it, but gay equality is the Civil Rights movement of today. How is opposition to civil rights viewed by history?




Depends if it is a cult behavior or a race.  In your case, the US has put a stop to many a cult that endangers children.  See my signature for details.

How will Americans feel in 40 years who stood up against Harvey Milkers accessing orphans through marriage?  Pretty damn good actually.  Coming down on the side of child safety is the only choice worth making here.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 10, 2014)

I did, Sil, and called you out for a fallacy, and now you are *filiblabbing *again when caught out.  There is no Church of LGBT cult, but if there was, then your arguments would apply to a Church of Hetero-fascism.

You can't have it both ways.



Silhouette said:


> Write it correctly eh Jake?  OK, here's the quote from our conversation.  Looks to me like you were calling LGBT a cult.  I understand the freudian slip; whether or not you meant to say it..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 10, 2014)

I put back in what you sliced out, Sil.

Yes, just imagine in 40 years what you and your adherents in the cult of hetero-fascism will look like to the world.


Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, legacy. You may not like it, but gay equality is the Civil Rights movement of today. How is opposition to civil rights viewed by history?
> ...






> *Silhouette*: Depends if it is a cult behavior or a race.  In your case, the US has put a stop to many a cult that endangers children.  See my signature for details.
> 
> How will Americans feel in 40 years who stood up against Harvey Milkers accessing orphans through marriage?  Pretty damn good actually.  Coming down on the side of child safety is the only choice worth making here.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, legacy. You may not like it, but gay equality is the Civil Rights movement of today. How is opposition to civil rights viewed by history?
> ...



You seize on these ridiculous memes and then lock on like a pitbull don't you? Seriously, the cult thing is truly original. Nutty, but original, but the "gays as pedophiles" thing...that's fucking old. 

We aren't in your buddy Putin's Russia. We are a 1st world country and we understand that children's welfare is not endangered by the presence of gays and lesbians. It's not surprising they don't know that in your Mother Russia, but that's because they aren't a 1st world country yet. 

You're going to be viewed by history EXACTLY like those that opposed black civil rights are viewed.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> I put back in what you sliced out, Sil.
> 
> Yes, just imagine in 40 years what you and your adherents in the cult of hetero-fascism will look like to the world.
> 
> ...


I don't know what people would do if they couldn't default to the race card on the tough issues, otherwise when the going gets tough they try and poison the well like they so desperately do in this way, but people see through this tactic now. 

You know when people were kids, and their moms and dads tried to raise them and teach them (if they did), well if some of those people in this forum could go back and do once again what is being done by them today, then there again wouldn't be anyone taught anything or to have learned anything, because the excuses would have been endless back then just like they are today. It's just sad how they try and justify bad for being somehow good, and they are trying so desperately now to do this, and yet it is being seen so easily when they do. 

This is what we have now, grown ups who did these same things to their parents as kids, and now they want to try it on the nation as well, but hopefully the nation wakes up from this stupor soon before it is to late.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

More good new on the marriage equality front. Another state taking the lead against bigotry!

Nevada Withdraws Efforts To Uphold Gay Marriage Ban


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> I don't know what people would do if they couldn't default to the race card on the tough issues, otherwise when the going gets tough they try and poison the well like they so desperately do in this way, but people see through this tactic now.
> 
> You know when people were kids, and their moms and dads tried to raise them and teach them (if they did), well if some of those people in this forum could go back and do once again what is being done by them today, then there again wouldn't be anyone taught anything or to have learned anything, because the excuses would have been endless back then just like they are today. It's just sad how they try and justify bad for being somehow good, and they are trying so desperately now to do this, and yet it is being seen so easily when they do.
> 
> This is what we have now, grown ups who did these same things to their parents as kids, and now they want to try it on the nation as well, but hopefully the nation wakes up from this stupor soon before it is to late.



Nobody is "defaulting to the race card". Also, nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation (despite they're both being innate traits). What is compared and comparable is the discrimination (and the protesters). 

Those that stand against marriage equality are going to be viewed by history the exact same way those that opposed black civil rights are viewed. This is not in dispute.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what people would do if they couldn't default to the race card on the tough issues, otherwise when the going gets tough they try and poison the well like they so desperately do in this way, but people see through this tactic now.
> ...


You sure about that, or are you just "Hopeful" about that ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 11, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



I feel very sure that if nothing apocalyptic throws back into the pre-electric age that, yes, that's how you will be viewed.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



I'm 100% certain about that.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You are pinning your hopes on the thoughts of one or two Federal judges. I think Gore Vidal and the professor have thought more about the issue and have more intelligent views. Gore Vidal had studied a lot of American history for his novels and his non-fiction dealt with political issues. 

Gay-"marriage" is an emotional crusade not a civil rights movement.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



I'll bet someone made that same claim back when interracial marriage was under discussion.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 11, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Where would your emotional crusade be if you couldn't compare it to interracial marriage?....the emotional pull, even on supposedly even-tempered thinking judges is huge...... but illegitimate...no one is tearing gay couples apart and throwing them in jail for living together.....


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 11, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> I'll bet someone made that same claim back when interracial marriage was under discussion.



Except that your premise is flawed.

Race is not behaviors.  LGBT are behaviors.  More than that, they have all the trappings of a cult movement.  

And that cult is dangerous to trust around children [see my signature and this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/222768-gay-day-at-disney-36.html ]

Marriage in Utah allows a special pass for the married to access adoptable orphans.  Therein lies the problem.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



...Anymore. Usually. Technically, some states still outlaw cohabitation if not married. Haven't heard anyone being charged under such laws, but I know they're still 'on the books.' And until just a decade or two ago, people were being arrested for homosexual acts as with sodomy laws still in effect. Now they're only 'deviate sexual intercourse' definitions applied to statutory rape and rape offenses. Though they usually wind up constituting an 'aggravated' charge which makes it a more serious crime. So there's still prejudice in law against sodomy (which in legal terms is considered oral or anal sexual acts.) ...So yes Virginia you can be arrested for a bj in many states to this day gay or not.

"Fourteen states still have laws on the books that criminalize anal sex between two consenting adults, including Utah, North Carolina, Montana, and Texas.

Despite the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which struck down such "sodomy" or "deviate sexual conduct" laws, several states did not remove the laws from their codes. Meanwhile, lawmakers such as Kristin Hansen in Montana have attempted to protect the laws even though they cannot be constitutionally enforced."
Sodomy Still Outlawed in 14 States | Advocate.com
- 2011 article.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet someone made that same claim back when interracial marriage was under discussion.
> ...



I'll conceed the LGBT community at functions are often sexually overt so there's some legitimacy to the statement they're dangerous around children.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I disagree, where is your Rosa Parks?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet someone made that same claim back when interracial marriage was under discussion.
> ...




Wanting to marry someone of another race is a "behavior".


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




Yet...

http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/wisconsin/29412299.html


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...




And that "danger" would be what exactly?

So far, nobody here has been more "sexually overt" than the haters like Warbler.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 11, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> I disagree, where is your Rosa Parks?



Their "Rosa Parks" is named "Harvey Milk"...he liked to double over troubled orphaned teen boys on drugs to sodomize while officiating as their father, while holding office as an openly gay man.



Seawytch said:


> Wanting to marry someone of another race is a "behavior".



Yes, it's called "heterosexuality" and each state is allowed to set standards for either homo or hetero marriage or both, according to their 'unquestioned authority' retroactive to the founding of the country. [DOMA/Windsor].  The issue of banning marriage because of the race of people the heterosexual behavior was to be practiced with was the issue.  The race was the issue, not the behavior.  The behavior was and is normal reproductive behavior.  LGBT is not.  

Moreover, gay sex cult behavior carries with it an epidemic that is killing our countrymen in two ways.  1. Outright by being virulent vectors for HIV [gay men are notoriously promiscuous...see statistics on their having been molested as boys for details on their hypersexuality] and 2. By heroics to keep those with full blown AIDS alive because simple bacterias we all normally can fight off are being turned into superbacterias that we all cannot fight off thanks to the overuse of antibiotics in heroic medicine for AIDS patients.

This cult is going to be very very expensive over time.  Add to that the increasing numbers of boys ages 13-24 coming down with HIV in recent years [odd, an increase for a "born that way" demographic..?]  And add in that each HIV patient becomes quickly indigent and treating them from start to horrible death costs on average over half a $million of the taxpayers' money, the superbugs being harbored and incubated in their dying bodies as heroics cannot stave off the ultimate end..and we've got ourselves a cult that my kill every one of us off in the end.  Not to mention their messiah being a child molestor venerated for his sexuality.

There are so many problems with this cult that it is hard to know where to start.  It is expensive and dangerous.  Perhaps the most expensive and dangerous threat to national security of any cult this country has ever had to deal with.  Jonestown was a isolated tragedy.  The church of LGBT is spreading like wildfire with unchecked aggression, blackmail and hubris.  

Fun fact.  Harvey Milk was an avid supporter, adovocate and apologist for Jim Jones of the Jonestown cult.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 11, 2014)

Is this site safe, because it appears that some weird things are happening when trying to use the site now ? I will ask the technician on site this question also. Carry on.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 11, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Is this site safe, because it appears that some weird things are happening when trying to use the site now ? I will ask the technician on site this question also. Carry on.



Yes, it's safe.  Run an antivirus on _your_ computer.  Other people are using it just fine.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree, where is your Rosa Parks?
> ...




No, our Rosa Parks are the gays and transsexuals that fought back at Stonewall. Our Rosa Parks is Edith Windsor.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet someone made that same claim back when interracial marriage was under discussion.
> ...



Your fail is that marriage allows heteros and homos to access adoptable children.

The cult of hetero-fascism, indeed, is dangerous to trust around children.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...


Did Edith get a stamp with the rainbow colors, no Harvey did because he represented power in the eyes of the LGBT right ? I mean wasn't he an official of some sort, so otherwise where there is government or government officials, there is power right ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




He got a stamp as the first openly gay politician elected to public office, period. It's too early for Edith...give it time.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


When did he receive his commemorative stamp, was it long after the people knew what kind of cat he was, yet it mattered not, and if so then what was all the attachment to him about ? Was it because he had power as an official to help make change for others like him, so let's hold him up at all cost because he showed that he could hold office and power in which was very enticing to those who sought to use that in order to help further their cause ? Otherwise why the attachment to Harvey Milk, was it because he was someone who gained power in the government ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




Edgar Allen Poe got a stamp long after we knew "what kind of cat he was". That's not what they were commemorated for.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I don't care who you are, if you are a bad cat and people know it or knew it, then you should get NOTHING. PERIOD!


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 11, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Then you should make that your life's work...making sure "bad cats" don't get stamps that nobody uses.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Edgar Allen Poe got a stamp long after we knew "what kind of cat he was". That's not what they were commemorated for.



Poe was celebrated for his poetry.  Milk is celebrated for his sexuality by the church of LGBT.  For more on that sexuality, see my signature...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


It's not the stamp that matters, but rather it's the symbolism in which the stamp represents that matters to those who celebrate him over that stamp. He should have had nothing awarded to him in remembrance of, and that is that. Period! Didn't that Barney Frank have some problems also ? He sure did disappear from the public scene quickly. Did Penn State leave any traces of those who hid or abused kids while employed with that college  ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 12, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Of course he should. That he dated a 17 year old when he was 30 has no effect on what he did in his professional life. It does not take away his accomplishments as the first openly gay politician...a politician who was murdered in office. 

The Founding Fathers would not like to be judged by their sex lives, I'm sure...(especially not that Alexander Hamilton feller)







Hmmm...how old was this guy's ^^^^ child bride?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Edgar Allen Poe got a stamp long after we knew "what kind of cat he was". That's not what they were commemorated for.
> ...



Nope, because there is no such organization except in your feeble brain.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Of course he should. That he *dated* a 17 year old when he was 30 has no effect on what he did in his professional life. It does not take away his accomplishments as the first openly gay politician...a politician who was murdered in office.



Milk was murdered by A FELLOW DEMOCRAT with whom he had disputes over nothing that had to do with Milk being openly gay.  

Milk "dated" a MINOR 16 year old  who was on drugs and mentally ill at the time and thereby thrice incapable of consent to being sodomized by Milk.  Those are three felonies.

That 16 year old minor, Milk was also officiating as "father figure" to at the time.  That 16 year old minor later committed suicide on Milk's birthday at the city where the statutory/drug rape began in NYNY.  That suicide was not the only suicide of boys that Milk sodomized in his preference for "...young waifs with substance abuse problems" as he himself aged into his 40s.

Why did you lie about the age of the boy Milk sodomized Seawytch?  Was it that one critical year that pushed this fresh meat for Milk into the "just barely legal" category?  Just tell the truth that is documented in his biography.  He was sodomizing a minor and shuttling that boy across state boundaries while doing so, in violation also of the MANN Act.

Here we go again.  When confronted with the facts of what Milk did, the faithful of the church of LGBT line up to defend his acts.  Be careful America.  Keep an eye on this cult..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2014)

Here we go again, Sil.  The Cult of LGBT is only in your head.  Milk should have been prosecuted.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I'm against the celebrating of anyone who does these things, even Jerry Lee, but Hollywood thinks differently than me, and Hollywood and our government are one in the same anymore.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Here we go again, Sil.  The Cult of LGBT is only in your head.  Milk should have been prosecuted.



That's not what Seawytch believes.  Seawytch, do you believe Harvey Milk should have been prosecuted for sex crimes against teen homeless boys on drugs in capable of consent?  I will regard your non-response or evasiveness as "No, I do not believe Harvey Milk should have been prosecuted for those crimes".


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 12, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




So go on a freaking stamp crusade but don't be so selective in your outrage.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again, Sil.  The Cult of LGBT is only in your head.  Milk should have been prosecuted.
> ...




Yes, he should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. Of course, someone would have had to give a big enough shit about a 17 year old homeless hustler living on the streets,  to press charges.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Sil, stop with the doctrine of affirmative silence, or I will use it on you.  You are quite willing to ignore materials you don't like.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Yes, he should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. Of course, *someone would have had to give a big enough shit about a 17 year old homeless hustler living on the streets,  to press charges*.



Your compassion for the plight of homeless/orphaned runaway teens is noted for the record Seawytch...  You're a lesbian, right?  A proud member of LGBT nation, yes?  And a parent of some two or three kids.  Didn't you give away a son or two to a pair of gay men?  I think that's what you said before.  Something about a deal you had with some gay men where they kept one of the boy twins you had and you kept the other?

Jack Mckinley, the "homeless hustler" that nobody should "give a shit about" was 16, not 17, the key difference [as you know already] between his being a legal minor in the state of New York where Milk began sodomizing him.  

So, once again, you are making excuses for the inexcusable.  Why do you keep lying about how old Jack McKinley was when Milk began sodomizing him?  Milk was 33 and McKinley was 16.  The place: New York NY.  The age of consent: 17.  Is that why you keep lying about it?  So it doesn't look like statutory rape?

And Jack McKinley's life was complicated.  Like many teen boys with troubled home lives that run away, he turned to whatever he could to make money, and was addicted to drugs and quite hopeless.  He struggled with suicidal thoughts all the time.  Do you think Milk was taken advantage of by McKinley or the other way around?  Note the age difference, and Milk's professed sexual appetite for "young waifs with substance abuse problems.."

What McKinley needed was a father figure who didn't bend him over at the waist for his jollies.  McKinley needed a good home without abuse.  But instead he found Harvey Milk and this final straw on his back caused him to jump to his death on Milk's birthday in NYNY where Milk began sodomizing him as a minor.  McKinley and the dozens of other teen boys on drugs that Milk found his jollies with was nothing more than a wad of kleenex to Milk.  Once the boy [then grown into a man/unacceptable sex partner beyond its shelf life] called Milk after Milk dumped him for fresher meat.  McKinley was suicidal, missing his father/sodomizer.  Milk told the person who answered the phone and was relaying the message, "tell him not to make a mess" [when he committed suicide] and then hung up on the Jack McKinley.

Since McKinley jumped to his death from a tall structure, I imagine he made quite a mess.  You know how boys can be so rebellious towards their fathers...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, he should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. Of course, *someone would have had to give a big enough shit about a 17 year old homeless hustler living on the streets,  to press charges*.
> ...



How sad for the boy.  But you have not made a case for not allowing marriage equality. We all know of cases of grown heterosexual men and women who preyed on girls and boys as well.  The point is that Milk was a predator who should have delivered to the law.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Yes, but instead he was made a hero, and a stamp was commemorated to him ? How did that happen or why does that happen ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Because men and women deny and shield what they are doing, and others buy into it.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And yet the cases of men and women who preyed on girls and boys sexually did not include those criminals being elevated to icon status [see the postage stamp of Harvey Milk with rainbow "USA" at the top and the California law avowing him as the "embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world" requiring elementary school children to celebrate his sexual-political "achievements" each May 22nd].  *Whereas society shuns and marginalizes those criminals in all other cases, over 60 LGBT organizations in US, Mexico and Canada, knowing his biography and the sex crimes against teens therein, lobbied to have his stamp commemorated with a rainbow 'USA' at the top*. 

You are trying to separate the church of LGBT from its messiah while they simultaneously and conspicuously embrace him as their icon.  Are you saying the elephant in the living room "just isn't there"?  Or are you going to try to argue that the rainbow USA at the top of the Harvey Milk stamp was just some random assignment of colors; not indicative of association with the LGBT cult?

BTW, what do you think, Jake, of Seawytch's assessment of the boy Harvey Milk raped as a minor as a boy that nobody should give a shit about to bother prosecuting Milk for?  Your thoughts?  Comments?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, he should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. Of course, *someone would have had to give a big enough shit about a 17 year old homeless hustler living on the streets,  to press charges*.
> ...




Why am I not surprised that you missed the point. Nobody but Milk seemed to give a shit about the young man. He wasn't some innocent that Milk took advantage of, he was a street hustler. Do you even care why he was homeless and a hustler to begin with? No, because it doesn't fit your stupid narrative.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Why am I not surprised that you missed the point. *Nobody but Milk seemed to give a shit about the young man. He wasn't some innocent that Milk took advantage of, he was a street hustler. Do you even care why he was homeless and a hustler to begin with?* No, because it doesn't fit your stupid narrative.



I think I went into great detail about how and why I care about young Jack McKinley, suicidal, homeless and turning tricks to stay alive at 16,..taken in by Harvey Milk acting as his "father" while simultaneously sodomizing him...adding to the mountain of mental issues Jack had instead of helping alleviate them as a father figure should.

You are also going into how much you 'care' about the plight of young homeless teens Seawytch.  Thanks for sharing again.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Why am I not surprised that you missed the point. *Nobody but Milk seemed to give a shit about the young man. He wasn't some innocent that Milk took advantage of, he was a street hustler. Do you even care why he was homeless and a hustler to begin with?* No, because it doesn't fit your stupid narrative.
> ...




The most likely scenario? His anti gay parents threw him out. That's how most homeless gay teens end up there. 

Milk wasn't raping McKinley. They had a relationship. At best, statutory rape. McKinley stayed with Milk long after he came of age so just drop the pathetic act.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> The most likely scenario? His anti gay parents threw him out. That's how most homeless gay teens end up there.
> 
> Milk wasn't raping McKinley. They had a relationship. At best, statutory rape. McKinley stayed with Milk long after he came of age so just drop the pathetic act.



Quite an about-face there Seawytch.  Just a couple of posts back you were advocating that he was a "hustler" who didn't deserve anyone to give a "shit about" enough to prosecute Harvey Milk for statutory rape.

Let's look into Jack McKinley's and other Milk-victims' lives while we are both speculating:



> Sexual Abuse? Or Discovering an Identity?
> 
> *Reading Shilts&#8217; biography, I&#8217;m amazed at how obtuse he is in his portrayal of Milk&#8217;s induction into homosexuality.
> 
> ...





> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of *depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta





> Mayo Clinic 2007
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 12, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The most likely scenario? His anti gay parents threw him out. That's how most homeless gay teens end up there.
> ...



No, you just didn't understand what I was saying. Nobody but Milk gave a shit about the young man. There was nobody to file statutory rape charges. 

Now you can continue your obsession with a dead man that has no bearing on marriage equality but you'll be talking to yourself.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> No, you just didn't understand what I was saying. Nobody but Milk gave a shit about the young man. There was nobody to file statutory rape charges.
> 
> Now you can continue your obsession with a dead man that has no bearing on marriage equality but you'll be talking to yourself.



I care about the minor boy Jack McKinley.  Apparently you don't.  There's the difference.


----------



## Barb (Feb 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



His "father" beat him brutally, that's why he ran away, and that's why it was necessary for Milk to pose as a guardian to help him in a legal matter. The truth means nothing to Sil, less than nothing.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > No, you just didn't understand what I was saying. Nobody but Milk gave a shit about the young man. There was nobody to file statutory rape charges.
> ...



No you don't. You don't really care that 40% of homeless youth are gay and lesbian. You only care about McKinley as a means to attack, not as a gay homeless teen who had to turn to hustling to survive.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Ok, these things yall have established, but did Milk take advantage of these things in which have been found out about the boy ? Wasn't that Sil's point ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



No, that wasn't Sil's point. Sil's point is gays shouldn't get equal rights because....Harvey Milk!

Sil doesn't give two shits that 40% of homeless youth are gay kids kicked out of their homes or have run away because of abuse. He only cares that Milk took the young man in off the streets and gave him a home, not that he was there in the first place. 

Sure, Milk probably should have bought him from his parents like Ted Nugent did...but McKinley's parents weren't anywhere to be found.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 13, 2014)

When he hooked up with Harvey Milk (who, for the record, I would class as a grade A creep), McKinley was the same age my grandmother was when she was MARRIED!


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Ok, but you have said yourself that Milk should have been brought up on charges of statutory rape, so it is established by you that Milk was a huge problem, now on to Sil's other point where she is livid about the uplifting of such a character as Milk, (even some making a day for him in California education), and so her main concerns is about a group seeking marriage privileges, yet they won't denounce him after he was deemed an icon in the groups eyes as according to her. What say you about her concerns of this, and especially after she has brought you to where you are right now in the education of this person who has been lifted up in this way, and yet isn't being denounced after all that is now known about him ?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> When he hooked up with Harvey Milk (who, for the record, I would class as a grade A creep), McKinley was the same age my grandmother was when she was MARRIED!


Ok, so he is a grade a creep, so should he be lifted up by the nation as he has been lifted up or should he be banished as Penn State banishes those who do such things or hid such things ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



No, I didn't acknowledge that it was a "huge" problem. I said that by law he should have been charged with statutory rape..because that's all it was. He wasn't molesting a child or raping anyone. 

Harvey Milk is recognized for his contributions, separate from what he did in his private life just like many of the people already mentioned. Jesus fucking Christ on a raft, the man is dead, let it go. He has no bearing on the discussions here except in Sil's twisted mind. He has no influence and nothing to do with marriage equality.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 13, 2014)

Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. Fucking awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. Fucking awesome!!!

Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

_Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentuckys laws do not show animus, *they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review*._


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

Barb said:


> His "father" beat him brutally, that's why he ran away, and that's why it was necessary for Milk to pose as a guardian to help him in a legal matter. The truth means nothing to Sil, less than nothing.



So, one of Milk's teen victims, this one a minor, ran from a man who beat him to the streets and as such Seawytch sees him as a "hustler" on drugs who nobody but Harvey Milk should or would or did give a shit about.  And so, because Milk took him in to sodomize as a minor, given his sexual orientation towards "young waifs with substance abuse problems", Milk is the hero and did not add to McKinley's young troubled life?

What I'm seeing between the lines here is justification of sexual predation on troubled youth.  Sorry, it's just hard to see it any other way.

Noted are the apologies for his behavior by the faithful who have elevated him to iconic status.  I think what he did to teen runaways with mental and substance abuse issues [by his preference], one after the other and the elevation of his "sexual preference" by LGBTers as iconic of their movement is going to at least create a tiny ripple when discussing of people who apologize for his behavior in the present day should have access to adoptable orphans...


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Actually, a valid point was made and you COMPLETELY ignored it, no worse you justified it with "well he did a bad thing, but he did a lot of good to so we honor those things"

Joe Paterno did FAR more good for the world than Harvey Milk ever thought about doing, but ALL of that was cancelled out by his failure to make sure a creep was stopped from harming kids, did Penn State say "well he did a lot of good, so we honor that" or did they take his statue down and remove all references to him from campus?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



....or did they gather 60+ groups together to commission a US Postage stamp of Joe Paterno with an emblem of Penn State in the upper right hand corner?

_"Hi, my name is Harvey Milk.  I liked to sodomize young teen homeless boys who were mentally ill and on drugs.  That way, like Seawytch said, nobody would give a shit about them when I broke the law at their expense.  We pedophlies know which kids to focus on: the ones without guardians and completely vulnerable to our advances.  And I did all this while holding a public office!  Now the faithful apologize for me and make laws requiring little kids in school to celebrate that I was open about my sexual orientation while holding a public office.  This is the type of complete abandonment of protection of children that we pedophiles only dream about but never fantasized would ever come true!"_

Like I said, it took over 60 LGBT groups in Mexico, Canada and the US tireless work to commission this stamp of their messiah:


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 13, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




Apples and not even fruit comparison. That doesn't even earn an "E" for effort.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. Fucking awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. Fucking awesome!!!
> 
> Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States
> 
> _Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentuckys laws do not show animus, *they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review*._


A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



actually , it is a dead on comparison you're simply too dishonest to acknowledge it.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?



Actually, the church of LGBT is going to run into a very difficult run with that one.  In DOMA/Windsor, the Court spelled out quite clearly that the decision about gay marriages was to be the "unquestioned authority" of each state via the broadest weigh-in possible, via "consensus" as they said.  And they said so retroactive to the founding of the country, and I quote, "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".  That is Court-speak for laymen that says "do not question this finding, for it is constitutional and now the law of the land".

The rogue officials in California, who are both fully versed in legal interpretations of judgments, knew full well this was the case and went ahead and defied that spirit of the law by ordering court clerks to defy their oaths of office and issue illegal "marriage licenses" to people who like to pretend to reproduce with other people of the same gender.

The only way a state does not have this constitutional right to a wide consensus on gay marriage is if the 14th applies to the church of LGBT, but not say, polygamists, who would surely come on their heels in a nanosecond before the ink is even dry on a Decision granting an override via the 14th..

Yet in Windsor, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia, the mainstay of the church's hopes of forcing what they do as "marriage" upon the governed.  _And even after bringing up Loving, found anyway that so-called "gay marriage" is within the exclusive boundaries of each state via wide consensus and NOT judicial activism/tyranny_.  In essence, therefore, the Court has already subjected gay marriage to the 14th and found it lacking.  It instead compared gay marriage to oddball marriages such as close blood relations or 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire.

ie: the prognosis for rogue officials claiming they weren't in flagrant contempt of the US Supreme Court because they thought the 14th applied to guarantee gay marriage in their state in spite of the duly-enacted and so recently constitutionally-protected right to consensus on gay marriage, is very poor indeed.  Instead it is as it appears: sedition of the People's right to govern themselves.  And as they say, heads will roll...

Most recent and flagrant of all the contempts of Court and sedition is AG Eric Holder flipping the middle finger to Windsor and declaring essentially martial law on approving gay marriage across the 50 states in spite of what those states do or do not want.  I find it very interesting that gays declared "victory!" when it was found the fed could not lay claim to defining gay marriage as legal or not in DOMA/Windsor.  And then they nearly instantly turn around through their puppet Eric Holder and claim that now all of a sudden, the fed has 'unquestioned authority' to define gay marriage as legal, at its whim...

You see a lot of this hypocrisy going on in a fascist movement.  Study your history books for it is happening directly in front of your eyes today:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...the-supreme-court-s-effective-castration.html


----------



## Barb (Feb 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > His "father" beat him brutally, that's why he ran away, and that's why it was necessary for Milk to pose as a guardian to help him in a legal matter. The truth means nothing to Sil, less than nothing.
> ...



I owe you another neg, but it'll take a couple of days. 

"should" is an outright fabrication on your part, as is "one after the other," and the plural in most of your ponderings, making it hard to keep up with the red you're due.

Can SOMEONE help me out here?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 13, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I don't understand why this thread has become a "try and defend Harvey Milk" thread. It's about holding a gay day at Disney.
> ...



Works in this thread too


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

No, this thread isn't about Gay Days at Disney per se.  But they are a point of interest when considering the big picture and exposing children to an inappropriate sexual cult.  

Here's what we are discussing.  Gays vs Utah, remember?



> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > A FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IT EH ? What would people do without the feds becoming their mouth piece, and the feds doing this out of total fear of political/party retrobution these days ?
> ...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> No, this thread isn't about Gay Days at Disney per se.  But they are a point of interest when considering the big picture and exposing children to an inappropriate sexual cult.
> 
> Here's what we are discussing.  Gays vs Utah, remember?
> 
> ...


It's a tough issue for those who may feel trapped in something they can't so easily get out of or may not want to get out of (the celebrating of someone that they should not be celebrating or had been allowed to represent them), so instead of reviewing this material themselves as educational or something in which they may want to know about, umm they feel they need to defend against it because it's all they can do now from their situations, unions or clubs in which they find themselves in, and this to be celebrating or to be represented by such a person as this Milk character who is bad.  Not Good. 

Not saying that people are guilty of anything bad themselves (breaking the laws and such) or being bad people as individuals, but rather one would figure that they would want to separate from any of those people or any celebrations for those who are guilty of bad things in their lives wouldn't you think ? 

To embrace bad things or bad people is surely a bad thing, and it could represent easily the spirit of the person's doing it also, or it could represent even a group or a club that does these sorts of things as a unit, and this rather than to separate from the bad as they should be doing in accordance with most common sense thinkers upon all matters that are being dealt with like these issues or matters that are then dealt with normally. 

All people's *need* to understand that *bad* is not ever your friend or ally, but rather it is instead the ultimate enemy in ones life. The proof of that is passed down through the generations, and also in time yet again and again, but each time people seem to forget about it, and then they have to be schooled yet again and again before they finally wake back up to it. Separate from bad people and bad things, I mean that's everyone's only hope in life, but also recognize a change for good when one see's it because people can learn something new, and possibly they can get away from bad people or bad things in life, and if so then people should always open the door up to that change when it occurs for the better, but still yet always lean on the side of caution I'd say. Trust is another important thing, and it should always be earned, and it should not be something that is just a given anymore because someone ask for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



You have no idea if the associations knew Milk's predatory ways, do you?

And that is not what Seawytch said.  Your propensity for fabrication is why you are not taken seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Why am I not surprised that you missed the point. *Nobody but Milk seemed to give a shit about the young man. He wasn't some innocent that Milk took advantage of, he was a street hustler. Do you even care why he was homeless and a hustler to begin with?* No, because it doesn't fit your stupid narrative.
> ...



No, you don't care about young Jack at all, as you fail in trying to make him and Harvey the face of a campaign that is going nowhere.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. Fucking awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. Fucking awesome!!!
> ...



The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2014)

I commend Seawytch and Barb for the continuing mission in unraveling the *filibabble *offered up by Sil and beagle.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Milk is respected by Gays because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to office and became a catalysts for the lesbian and gay movement which of course is why he is hated by the homophobes.  Like many political leaders, he is respected not because of his shortcoming but because of what he accomplished.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you don't care about young Jack at all, as you fail in trying to make him and Harvey the face of a campaign that is going nowhere.



I take issue with that pal.  I knew a "Jack McKinley".  I knew a boy who was abused [sexually in his case] as an adolescent by a man.  He grew up so confused, falling in love with women but only able to express himself sexually as he was imprinted: gay.  He had no access to help.  Even in those days the APA was well overtaken by the gay cabal that runs it now. So he became more and more compulsive trying to anesthetize the pain with promiscuous sexual encounters with other men.

Naturally he got HIV.  His unresolved anger compelled him to go out and not tell a soul while he infected as many other partners in his unresolved mental illness and suicidal/murderous lifestyle.  He died after suffering horribly with AIDS in the mid 1990s but not before he surely sentenced 100's or maybe 1000s to die the same way as he did.

The roots of gayness need to be understood and NOT brushed aside as "born that way" with a Mt. Everest of evidence to the contrary.  This is a fad, an insidious lifestyle passed on as the older survivors of child assault induct new members without thought to what they're doing, where they came from or where it is all going.

DON'T YOU EVER tell me I don't care about tortured adolescents like Jack McKinley.  My Jack McKinley was a tragic and horrible tale of childhood sexual abuse, just like Harvey Milk suffered and then expressed as he grew old to a new group of victims.



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of *depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...





> Mayo Clinic 2007
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...





> Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
> 
> James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


But it's not a civil rights issue is it, otherwise as with the core of what the civil rights issue had represented back in the 60's right ? Some may think so or want to think so, but how many think that way I wonder, and how many don't think that way I wonder ? Movements can attach themselves to just about anything I'm thinking, but does it stick is the question still out there looming for many ? How does everyone get satisfaction without abusing one another in such things, especially if the people opposed are not to be considered in the deal ? How is it that the feds tend to want to rule as a dictator in these things, instead of being a fair and just representative of the people anymore ? What are the feds up against in these things anymore, and why are they up against such things anymore, where as they feel they have to force people instead of getting some kind of better plan for all to somehow live with in such things ?

The feds ruling as dictator is a bad thing, and it seems the people are teaching them exactly how to do this these days.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

Flopper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Tell that to Penn State.. Did they do the right thing or not Flopper ?


----------



## Flopper (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Penn State??


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

Flopper said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Now this...this has to do with Marriage Equality. Kentucky just became a state I am legally married in. Fucking awesome! Kentucky is really going to town with the Affordable Care Act too. I never thought I'd be adding Kentucky to my list of potential retirement spots, but it's a purdy state and they can't discriminate against me anymore. Fucking awesome!!!
> ...



No, Federal judges are following the Constitution and its case law.  

And Federal judges wouldnt need to get involved if the states themselves would only start following the Constitution and its case law. 

When the states seek to deny citizens their civil liberties, however, as in this case with gay Americans, citizens have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts; and when judges in those courts review the laws and find them to be offensive to the Founding Document, they invalidate them accordingly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



It is in fact a civil rights issue, gay Americans were fighting for their civil liberties during the 60s and before. 

And the struggle for civil rights continues to this day, the struggle has not been ended nor resolved. African-Americans are being forced again to defend their right to vote, women continue to be subject to attacks on their right to privacy by conservative lawmakers, and gay Americans continue to seek their comprehensive civil rights. 

This ruling concerning Kentucky is another positive step in the right direction.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 13, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasnt gay  in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


It all still falls under the interpretations of the documents, the law and the cases at hand, and all cases are not the same, even though some try and tie them into the others for strengthening their positions in these ways.  However, they still have to get a judge to buy into it, and these days there seems to be no end to activist judges who rule with emotion instead of by proper interpretation of the law or the laws in which they were written, and also as they were written in the spirit for which they were written in at different times in which we all know of. Now some things were just plain wrong back in the day, but there were many a thing that was just plain right as well. Now it seems that everything is on the table, even if it isn't right for them to be laid upon the table as equal to the others that are also there, but that is how it is being done now isn't it ?

A smart lawyer or attorney could stand just about anything on it's head these days, and these weak activist federal judges will just about believe or buy into anything these days.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Again read back or don't speak on something out of it's context please. Thanks !


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasn&#8217;t gay &#8211; in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.



All of Sandusky's victims were male children.  Therefore, he was what the Mayo Clinic categorizes as a homosexual pedophile:




> Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007
> 
> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
> and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

Why would anyone care if you "take issue with that, Sil."  Your anecdotal past means nothing to the case.

beagle, you are right the interpretation of the Constitution and case law determine the outcome.  Get ready for it.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 14, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Judges striking down anti gay laws are following the Constitution. There is no "activism".


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The Penn State child abuse scandal has nothing to do with this issue, Jerry Sandusky wasnt gay  in fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual.
> ...



Sanduski was a married man. How does that fit into your twisted bullshit?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 14, 2014)

How awesome would it be if Virginia was the case that made it to the SCOTUS that strikes down all anti-gay marriage laws? 

First came Loving v Virginia, next Bostic, London, Shall & Townley v Virginia

Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Perhaps he's bisexual, which would STILL make him a member of your community . LOL all too easy


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Completely incorrect

A constitutional amendment could remove any protections you enjoy. It wouldn't be easy, nor should it be, but if the electorate en masse decided to repeal any protections you enjoy, they could do so.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Well the church of LGBT calls these people "in the closet".  I KNOW you are familiar with that term.

It's like when a butch lesbian is looking like, talking like and acting like a man.  The gal that's "attracted to her" is actually suspect of closeted heterosexuality.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 14, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




If he were bisexual that would make him a "member" of your "community" as well, right?

You need to read up more on pedophiles like Sundusky. They self identify as straight but are attracted to pre-pubescent _children. _They aren't gay. Gay men are attracted to other MEN. People attracted to children are *pedophiles*.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




With every post you display your unbelievable ignorance.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Undoubtedly being married was simply a cover for the man in his life, as I bet his wife was oblivious to the man's activities while he was married to her or do you think that she may have known also what he did to those boy's ? I wouldn't think that she did.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Are judges following the constitution when they are having to *force* the majority of the electorate to agree to something in which they don't want to agree with on some of the issues state by state by state ? Is that what the constitution suggest to this nation now, otherwise that if people bring issues, and they can somehow link them to other issues, then the judges must follow this linking no matter what ?  I'm just asking, because I believe all of this is new these days am I right ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



I was talking about state electorates because that is what this case is about: Amendment 3 passed by the citizen of Utah.

If you can get 2/3 2/3/3/4, go for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Well the *church *of LGBT calls these people "in the closet".  I KNOW you are familiar with that term.
> 
> It's like when a butch lesbian is looking like, talking like and acting like a man.  The gal that's "attracted to her" is actually suspect of closeted heterosexuality.



There is *no such church*, except in your mind, sil.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



yes they can

see prop 8


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



See the SCOTUS ruling, friend.  States' cannot violate civil rights.  Why would you lie about this?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 14, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




They can try, but it gets overturned. See _Heller_.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Now see how it all gets going when the federal judges dabble in things that are so confusing even for them ? I mean see this case, and then see that case, then it's refer to this one or refer to that one.. It's enough to make peoples heads spin round and round on their shoulders anymore, but that is the thinking I guess. Otherwise cast as much confusion as possible, then no one knows which way is up or which was is down anymore. It has seemingly worked in a lot of ways too. Carry On.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 14, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



No, there is nothing new about the doctrine of judicial review and the courts authority to invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution; this doctrine predates the founding of the Republic, it was practiced in Colonial America and is part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back centuries before then.  

When the people err and enact an un-Constitutional measure, it is both the duty and responsibility of the Federal courts to invalidate that measure in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. See _McCulloch v. Maryland_ (1819).        

Ones civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Gay Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their jurisdiction of residence is irrelevant  neither the states nor the people who reside in those states have the authority to deny an American citizen his civil liberties, civil liberties that are protected by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



You are the one confused, son, not the judges.

They have the power of judicial review, you don't.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I guess it all falls upon this then, as to the determining of what ones unique civil liberties are, and what they are considered to be completely in each unique case that is brought.  If a judge so deems that they have met the standard in which those rights would then apply to them in a case, then arguments and appeals are and should be welcome as well afterwards. Now as to whether or not all equally can meet the standards in which the rights were meant to be understood as or are given when such things were documented, created or passed, and for which are to be applied to or not to be applied to upon review, otherwise whether it be by a panel of judges or a judge that would review such things as a new case to be brought, then it is any ones guess at that point as to what might or might not happen. 

It is seemingly what is faced each time an issue is to be brought under review by the system, and if we think that the consensus of the people don't weigh heavily upon the judges minds, then place yourself in the other guy or gal's shoes who are experts at making judges feel this way (intimidated), and then you will think again about whether or not a judge or panel can be swayed by the people upon their rulings or their findings in such things.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Aren't you glad ? LOL


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 14, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!!   Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution. 

The Constitution only has validity if it represents the will of the people.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



I have been pissed off at several decisions in the last few years, for sure. But somebody has to do it, and thank heavens it is not you or me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!!   Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.
> 
> The Constitution only has validity if it represents the *will of the people*.



*(Preamble) *

*We the People *of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!!   Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.
> ...



not sure what your getting at here other than you know the opening lines of the constitution, which is better than the idiotic federal judge from Virginia who recently confused it with declaration, and probably typifies the average hack federal judge.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Is that the best you can do?  The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution.  I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




Makes sense to me.. I think that is what Obama and the dems have found out, which is if you break the will of the people, and even use judges in doing so, then you pretty much make the constitution null and void. So you make a good point..


----------



## Yurt (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



fuck off troll...you said "remove"...they certainly can remove rights and then it is up to scotus to determine if the state acted properly or not.  so yes, i am once again telling the truth and you act like a petulant child.  scotus has yet to rule that gay marriage among the states is a civil right....so who is lying jake?  

not me....


----------



## Yurt (Feb 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



of course, that is why i like our three branches of government.  if a state removes a right, which jake claimed they could not, then scotus can overrule the state.  but scotus will not do so unless someone brings a claim.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



I won't play semantics with you, because you are wrong as usual.  You cannot stand being rightfully corrected.  Our civil rights always remain, if not honored because of state tyranny.  SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution.  Quit your lying.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!!   Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.
> ...


Could that very same "WE THE PEOPLE", mean we the *united *or we as a *majority who think alike *, and this - in Order to form a more perfect *Union*, establish *Justice*, insure *domestic Tranquility*, provide *for the common defence*, promote the *general Welfare,* and secure the *Blessings of Liberty *, to ourselves and our Posterity, do (AS IN *WE* DO) ordain and *establish this Constitution for the United States of America.* ?

Now who is allowing the constitution to be ruled by a minority view on some matters of indifference now, and for whom are now being found in those who are twisting it inside out in order to run rough shod over the good people in America ? I wonder hmmmm.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2014)

beagle9, you can interpret the Constitution all  you want and opine about all you want.  What a great country.

But SCOTUS is the group that counts in the long run, not an ever decreasing minority to the far right.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9, you can interpret the Constitution all  you want and opine about all you want.  What a great country.
> 
> But SCOTUS is the group that counts in the long run, not an ever decreasing minority to the far right.


The changing of the guard so to speak within this nation, well umm it can either be a good thing or a bad thing at times in many cases, so what has the track record been since the slipping of one in respect for the other as you say ?  If one is on the wrong side of history, then look out, because history has a way of swinging back around to bite once again. I think people are pushing many things to the limit these days, so we will see how long it all last afterwards.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



cite where scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.  you claimed it, now cite it.  

what happened here, is that you were wrong after calling me a liar, instead of just admitting it, you now move the goal posts.  FACT:  the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.  it is not semantics at all, it is our system of government.  think about it...*states violate civil rights all the time, you claim they can't* (using jakey's logic he is a liar), but they do.  and guess what, you have to go to court for redress.  think 1983 actions you dimwitted troll.

and you claim i'm lying because you simply aren't smart enough to understand what is being discussed.  so you throw out your petulant....YOU ARE A LIAR

get a new schtick troll


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You're an attorney I presume?  And you've been doing a very good job I notice skirting around the observations that LGBT are behaviors and not an innate race of people.

You know there is mountains of evidence to support this.  I've supplied quotes and links from the Mayo Clinic and the CDC's report in the Clinical Psychiatrist's Journal.  Also a link to the compilation of over 300 studies showing that sexual behavior is conditioned after birth, at a time close to puberty from Quebec Canada's neurobiological specialists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 15, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Actually not. 

Theres nothing confusing about the issue or law involved. 

In all the cases concerning gay Americans right to access marriage law  California, Utah, Oklahoma, and now Virginia  the Federal courts have consistently applied 14th Amendment equal protection jurisprudence; in each one of these cases the laws violating the civil liberties of gay Americans were invalidated in accordance with that law.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Since DOMA, 5 courts have sided with equality. Guess how many sided against?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Since DOMA, 5 courts have sided with equality. Guess how many sided against?




What are the other two again?  Utah, Oklahoma, Virginian, and...?

I forget.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 15, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Since DOMA, 5 courts have sided with equality. Guess how many sided against?
> ...




Utah: In the first of the five decisions siding with marriage equality, Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utahs ban on same-sex marriages, holding that [t]he Constitution protects the Plaintiffs fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government. He dismissed the suggestion that states rights can somehow trump these fundamental rights  the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states rights where these two interests are in conflict.

Oklahoma: Less than a month after the Utah decision, Judge Terence Kern sided with marriage equality in Oklahoma. Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed, Kern wrote, It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.

Ohio: An Ohio case that began with a man in the terminal stages of Lou Gehrigs disease who wants to die knowing that his own death certificate will list his husband as his surviving spouse, led to Judge Timothy Black holding that Ohio may not discriminate against same-sex couples who legally marry in another state, at least with respect to death certificates. Although Judge Blacks opinion is fairly narrow in scope, his opinion strongly hints at broader implications  once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

Kentucky: On Wednesday, Judge John G. Heyburn held that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Notably, Judge Heyburn is a George H.W. Bush appointee who once served as Special Counsel to future Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Virginia: Finally, Judge Arenda Wright Allen wrote the most recent marriage equality decision  We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.

In addition to these five federal court decisions, state courts in New Mexico and New Jersey also sided with marriage equality post-Windsor.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ded-marriage-equality-0-sided-discrimination/


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9, you can interpret the Constitution all  you want and opine about all you want.  What a great country.
> ...



Your deflection is noted.

The power is SCOTUS not your opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



You claim that I said *scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it. * Another Yurt lie.  I said, "SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution.  Quit your lying."

Yurt, you are lying.

Clayton_C_Jones wrote beautifully above that "One&#8217;s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 15, 2014)

>








Ohio and Kentucky - yep.


Need more coffee.





>>>>


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Why bring up Palin and Bachmann? They aren't federal judges, supposed experts on the Constitution. They arent using it to nullify the will of the people. 

your post quoting the Constitution did not address the mis-info provided by Jones that said judicial review was used in Colonial America.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 15, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



It is incumbent upon the people, as represented by their elected officials, to enact measures that comport with the Constitution; and when they fail to do so they may not claim will of the people as justification.   

Moreover, judges, as administrators of the judicial branch of government, must review cases brought before them in good faith, where only the case law factors into their decision-making, not personal, subjective opinion or popular sentiment  this is why Federal judges are not elected, and are appointed for life terms, to ensure their impartiality.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



you were wrong with your dis-info on judicial review and your ass-backwards with this  post also.

It is not really "incumbent" upon the people to enact measures that comport with the constitution,..if they feel they want to pass a measure that is constitutionally questionable they can do that, knowing that it may fail. They may also propose amendments to both state and national Constitutions.  The Constitution is only legitimate so far as it reflects the will of the people, that is what makes it a higher law than legislative. 

judges can look to more than case law. Cases brought "in good faith" would have eliminated the Windsor case. Appointments for life do NOT ensure impartiality.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> It is not really "incumbent" upon the people to enact measures that comport with the constitution,..if they feel they want to pass a measure that is constitutionally questionable they can do that, knowing that it may fail. They may also propose amendments to both state and national Constitutions.  The Constitution is only legitimate so far as it reflects the will of the people, that is what makes it a higher law than legislative.
> 
> judges can look to more than case law. Cases brought "in good faith" would have eliminated the Windsor case. Appointments for life do NOT ensure impartiality.



Good points.  If you look at Windsor, that was just Written mere months ago, the Justices are not going to do an about face on their firm stance that states get to define marriage. 

Like I said, they brought up Loving v Virginia, which is the same as bringing up the 14th, and they found that in spite of that same sex marriage is only legal in "some states".  They made a comparison as well of same sex marriage as to blood relatives marrying [incest] and 13 year olds marrying in Vermont.  Will there be a sudden sweep, a mandate of 13 year olds being able to marry across all 50 states?  Probably not.

The simple fact that the avid followers of LGBT here are trying desperately to avoid talking about is that the US Supreme Court is not famous for reversing its key stance [they declared the issue of state's rights was pivotal in Windsor] on a given issue in less than a year's time.

Harvey Milk vs Utah will be heard this year.  So, just prepare mentally that SCOTUS isn't likely to reverse it's key stance that states have the unquestioned and constitutionally supported right to a broad-swath consensus [goodbye judicial activism or even legislature activism] retroactive to the founding of the country.  For this is exactly how they worded and intended Windsor to mean.  They brought up the 14th and found that gay marraige did not apply across 50 states.  As Larry the Cable Guy would say....."there's your sign..."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Don't be silly.  You mentioned the inadequacy of a federal judge in a political context, which makes the far right's idiots fair game as well.

Your comment reveals your ignorance on the subject, though.  Consult The Aristocracy of the Long Robe: The Origins of Judicial Review in America (Contributions in Legal Studies)
so that you are able to talk about sides of the coin.

_On the basis of a survey of English practice and American Colonial case law and legal controversies, the author engages in a sometimes heated complaint against the emergence of a Transcendently Omnipotent' Court' in opposition to the historical evidence that no precedent for such a Court can be found in English or Colonial American practice. Paradoxically, *his review of Colonial controversies goes a considerable distance toward establishing that judicial review was an early topic of controversy and thus not without precedent in American constitutional development*._ 

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/The-Aristocracy-Long-Robe-Contributions/dp/0313267332[/ame]


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



great, so you now admit that scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage.  good for you, you're getting a little more honest when backed in a corner and you realize i'm right, you're just too immature to admit it.

nice dodge on "states can't violate civil rights"....you, according to YOUR logic, LIED, because states violate civil rights all the time.

fuck off troll liar


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Kidding me right ? That ensures their impartiality, because they are not elected, and have life terms ? If anything it ensures their being corrupted at any given time because of this (IMHO). So what if they become corrupted and controlled by a powerful cabal, drug cartel, minority, corporate corrupt elite, imperialistic ruling class, mafia types, or even a governing body that has become corrupted, then what ? Do these judges rule right through it all righteously and impartially as you think (or) do they tow the line out of fear and/or out of being controlled now by any of these bad situations that can easily exist now in our government and in America ?  I personally think the government has been infiltrated now, and it took some time to do so, but it is showing up in just about everything now. Now why has this happened one would ask ? Well I think it's because the people had went astray or were driven astray over time, and they *in regardless of this straying* still have a government that represents them for who they have become or who they are, so what does that say ? Even if what they have become is wrong it matters not anymore, because everything changes with them, including these judges rulings and the government.

What was the failsafe to these things happening I wonder, because the way it is all going there seems to have been none to counter such things, even if those things are figured by the majority to be wrong and wrong headed, the people are now being forced to agree. Does these things equal a tyrannical government rule now, and for whom will rule on the side of special interest every time? YEP!  They sure aren't ruling on the side of the people who are good and are of no harm to this nation at all in their good anymore. Now who exactly are these judges ruling for these days, and is it not unequal protection against those in which the rulings are against ? How can we recite equal protections under law, when the majority of the populous aren't included in that same protection under these rulings anymore ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



You lied again, Yurt.  *I said the states, as long as they don't violate civil rights, can make rules for marriages. * 

Big difference.  Son, you don't get to reinterpret what I write.  You are wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong.

It is what it is.  And here you are complaining like a little girl.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Silhouette, beagle9, and Yurt are obviously engaged in *filibabble*.

They will post long diatribes that mean nothing.

They will make accusations they can't support.

They have their right to their opinions, and clear thinking folks can ignore them.

Tis what tis.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

jake is trolling again, here are the facts and the truth:

1.  i made this comment:  *scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage*.  this is absolutely true and jake claims i'm lying.  fact is, at this point states can ban gay marriage until their courts overturn it or their federal court districts or circuits overturn it.  why jake would claim they can't is beyond me, because the fact is, many states do in fact have a ban on gay marriage.  yet, jake says i'm lying.....

2.  jake made this comment:   *States' cannot violate civil rights*.  this is absolutely not true, states violate civil rights all the time, hence why we have 1983 actions.  

3.  nothing i have said in this thread is untrue.  i have no idea why jakey is such a troll and hates me so much he can't have a rational discussion with me on an issue we both agree on.  he is an immature asswipe.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt said:


> FACT:  the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.



This is fundamentally inaccurate. 

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not take away civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights. 

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying  any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end  absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria. 

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional  such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end. 

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else. 

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans. 

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not restore rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower courts ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right. 

With regard to same-sex couples right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals courts ruling upholding a Federal judges opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt said:


> jake is trolling again, here are the facts and the truth:
> 
> 1.  i made this comment:  *scotus has not held that states cannot ban gay marriage*.  this is absolutely true and jake claims i'm lying.  fact is, at this point states can ban gay marriage until their courts overturn it or their federal court districts or circuits overturn it.  why jake would claim they can't is beyond me, because the fact is, many states do in fact have a ban on gay marriage.  yet, jake says i'm lying.....
> 
> ...



Yes, because you have mish mashed the above, and now everybody has to go back and read it all for themselves.

Yurt, you know that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth, even when caught out.  Particularly when called out, because you will double down and lie even more.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt will NOW call YOU a liar, Clayton.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Incorrect. 

The doctrine of judicial review was in fact practiced by Colonial courts. 



> The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. *They held this presumption because of colonial American practice.* By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.
> 
> The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > FACT:  the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.
> ...



one question:

were rodney king's civil rights taken away when he was nearly beaten to death?

and the scotus does indeed restore rights.  to say otherwise is naive and shows a lack of understanding of how our legal system works.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > jake is trolling again, here are the facts and the truth:
> ...



mish mashed?  did i misquote you?  no.  you said those exact words and i said those exact words.  nothing was taken out of context.  you can't even address the post with any substance.  

but you're such a hateful troll you just can't admit it, so you lie and claimed i mish mashed.  

you're a loser jake.  when you get caught being wrong, you can't admit it, so you call the other person a loser, even when that person agrees with you on the issue.  what the fuck is wrong with you?  you're pathological.  you're very close to going back on ignore.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



where is the mish mash jake?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

clayton, can states violate your civil rights?

yes or no.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

i once didn't reply to a post by jake for 40 minutes and he claimed i ran away

well we are over 40 minutes

jake....have you run away, according to the rules set by you?


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



so your comparing judicial review to the king's stooges overturning laws by colonial legislatures.  The same king and courts we overthrew in the revolutionary war. If you want to continue to push that comparison your welcome to. 

It is perhaps because of that process tho that judicial review was prohibited in the early state governments and constitutions, according to "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America" by Mark R. Levin


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Been following the Dunn verdict stuff, but to loserville with Yurt and dcraelin

(1) Yurt got caught crying again so he is filiblabbling

(2) dcraelin got it wrong so he is crying

Yurt believes, I think, that Dunn was right to shoot the youth.  I am right, Yurt?


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Don't be silly.  I mentioned the inadequacy of a federal judge in a legal context.

Aristocracy of the Long Robe is the book you cite,... somehow I think it might be against judicial review,... as the later paragraph acknowledges. What the English practiced WAS an abuse and wasn't really based on a Constitution sense the British didn't have a Constitution.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Been following the Dunn verdict stuff, but to loserville with Yurt and dcraelin
> 
> (1) Yurt got caught crying again so he is filiblabbling
> 
> ...



so when i didn't reply within 40 minutes....why did you claim i ran away?  

i got caught crying?  about what?  

your last statement is so far from the truth i am amazed and appalled that anyone on this board believes you.  you have fooled many people jake, but you can't fool them all.  

you have now run away again from you claim that states cannot violate civil rights....you have again run away from the fact that scotus has not rule that states cannot ban gay marriage.  

you're just flailing and making troll posts that have NOTHING to do with the topic.  i put the topic squarely within your sites.  i even numbered them and yet you continue to troll and run like the coward you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

You have been given competent rebuttal.

Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.

Tuff, but there it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Been following the Dunn verdict stuff, but to loserville with Yurt and dcraelin
> ...



I was clear in what I said, and you have been lying ever since.

You are the ultimate troll, Yurt, but you fail, so you are the poorest ultimate troll.

Now prove what you said, or you will continue to lie.

The far right position crumbles any and every time that Yurt posts about anything.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



????

1.  you didn't answer my question about me not answering for 40 minutes and you claimed i ran away.

2.  what are you clear about in what you said?  be specific.  because i quoted your exact words and even quoted the FULL post and you still can't admit you're wrong about states violating civil rights.  what is wrong with you? 

3.  how am i the ultimate troll?   how have i trolled this thread?  i have tried to keep you on topic and all you do is pout and CRY:  yurt is a liar and troll.  you do not answer anything of substance.  i cannot believe anyone on this board takes you seriously.  i'm not kidding.  

4.  what do you want me to prove jake?  what did i say that you want me to prove?  

5.  why bring up the far right with me jake?  is it because i support gay marriage?  or is it you're just a fucking dumbass troll that only knows certain words and must repeat them ad nauseum?


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have been given competent rebuttal.
> Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.
> Tuff, but there it is.



judicial overreach is certainly part of American legal history....something we tried to reject with the revolutionary war.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Your filibabble only reveals your trollishness, buddy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You have been given competent rebuttal.
> ...



That was removing trials to GB, buddy, not judicial review.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have been given competent rebuttal.
> 
> Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.
> 
> Tuff, but there it is.



And the final stop in judicial review is the US Supreme Court.

I repeat:



> If you look at Windsor, that was just Written mere months ago, the Justices are not going to do an about face on their firm stance that states get to define marriage.
> 
> Like I said, they brought up Loving v Virginia, which is the same as bringing up the 14th, and they found that in spite of that same sex marriage is only legal in "some states".  They made a comparison as well of same sex marriage as to blood relatives marrying [incest] and 13 year olds marrying in Vermont.  Will there be a sudden sweep, a mandate of 13 year olds being able to marry across all 50 states?  Probably not.
> 
> ...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > FACT:  the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.
> ...



Isn't this what Sil has been arguing, and that it is her hopes that the feds or states will not allow access to those who would abuse that access when it comes to children, and the adoption of those children through the allowance of full blown marriage within what she describes as a cult who would abuse that access if were granted the full blown privilege as a right under the law ? Her findings are that they are glorifying a hustler and a bad man who is being lifted up by them even so, and here he has done some despicable things, and yet he is still glorified and lifted up regardless of this bad (or) is she wrong in concerns of that maybe ?  Is she wrong within her findings in connection too that access because of what she has found in all that she has learned, and has found out about in the situation ? Could Sil's arguments be brought forth in a case for a state or states to consider, otherwise if she was a representative of such a state or states ?  Is there any merits to her findings at all or is she to be ignored in her findings ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Sil, yes, SCOTUS is where final judicial review ends.

Your finding that *The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end &#8211;* must be completed with in accordance with the 14th Amendment's guarantees.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



 i don't speak for the rest of the board as you claim to do....but you didn't address a single point.  you're not debating anything, you're trolling.  

this happens every single time you and i disagree.  you're a pussy jake.  i post facts and truths and you ad hom.  

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





jake is a special kind of retard


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...


I don't know, I mean a retard is excusable, so Jake is something else altogether. You should have been here when Sil was whipping him good, because then he tried this tactic of " I'm telling on you to the mod", even though he didn't know what he was going to tell about or if it was even worth telling about, but it was his last ditch effort against her when he and some others were down on the floor for the count a time or two...LOL


----------



## Yurt (Feb 15, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





jakey is the board's biggest tattle tale and the most whiny wannabe mod.  thank goodness the owner of this site realizes jake is not fit to be a mod.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his buttgroove yet again.

The only reason that beagle9 looks sentient is that he is standing next to Yurt.

To prove the point is that Yurt, who says is for marriage equality, is in a something-some with Sil and beagle9.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his buttgroove yet again.
> 
> The only reason that beagle9 looks sentient is that he is standing next to Yurt.
> 
> To prove the point is that Yurt, who says is for marriage equality, is in a something-some with Sil and beagle9.



Is that an argument you would use in court or just ad hominem to detract from the fact that in this thread "court" you are losing your argument on the merits?

You've read DOMA I'm assuming.  You realize they visited the 14th by bringing up Loving v Virginia and decided anyway that gay marriage wasn't allowed in all 50 states, right?  You've read how the hub of Windsor/DOMA was a state's right to determine marriage under the context of the question of legality of gay marriage, right?

Of course you have..

...back to your ad hominems now counsellor...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his buttgroove yet again.
> ...


Not only that, but it is some real fillababble..LOL

Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his butt groove yet again.  *((Nasty))*

The only reason that beagle9 looks sentient is that he is standing next to Yurt....* Yurt he fears your intellect with a statement like this one..*

To prove the point is that Yurt, who says is for marriage equality, *is in a something-some *with Sil and beagle9. 

What is a *something-some *? Babble babble blah blah blah deflect deflect.. That's Jake !


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 16, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...




Her "finding" are all bullshit. Children are not any more at risk with gay parents than they are with heterosexual parents. Children of gays are at no disadvantage to kids with straight parents. 

Kids' Voices Key On Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Debate

On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced its support of same-sex marriage as being good for kids, Majors says.

The Rev. Gene Robinson, along with his daughter Ella and partner Mark Andrew, attend a news conference after Robinson was confirmed as bishop of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis in 2003. Robinson was the church's first openly gay bishop, and his daughter is an advocate for gay marriage.

"More than 30 years of social science research tells us that the children have the same outcomes, the same positive outcomes, as children raised by opposite-sex couples," he says.[...]

Yet public opinion is moving rapidly in favor of same-sex marriage. A decade ago, the Pew Research Center found that most Americans thought it would undermine the traditional family. Today, researcher Michael Dimock says, most do not.

"We see a lot of support for same-sex couples raising children," he says. "Sixty-four percent in the current poll say that same-sex couples can be as good as parents as heterosexual couples. That's much higher than support for gay marriage."

In fact, Dimock says, Americans seem to regard *same-sex marriage and parenting as two separate issues.*​


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 16, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> 
> ...



States are falling so fast, it's hard to keep track without a Program.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 16, 2014)

beagle9 and Sil have no points that will stand up in court.  Period.

Yurt is simply upset that he lies and gets caught every time.

Guys, it is what it is: it is not going to change.

Since Yurt will troll wherever I post on the Board in hope to derail the thread, I have put him on Ignore.

beagle9, I am going to work with you.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Ok, now you say that hetero-sexual's can be bad or just as bad also, so we do understand that there is an admitting that bad can exist on both sides of the situation, but to what degree does this bad exist in either case studies now talked about I wonder ? Is there any good measuring stick for these statistics to be known ? Now does gay parenting (all depending) increase the bad (i.e. add to the bad) or does it decrease the bad (i.e. actually lessons the bad) for the children ? How is any of it actually measured other than the studies or findings that are reported on or investigated within the layers? Has there ever been a thorough investigation into these things, and if so what were the findings, because it is important for you and everyone to know. When children are at risk, it is important to know the patterns of both hetero and gay in which puts them at risk, wouldn't you agree ?

If the findings are egregious on either fronts, then the study needs to reveal what and why they are in this way. Then action needs to be taken in order to save the children from abusive situations, but no one can do that if they don't understand the patterns or the situations if such stats are hidden or not spoken about honestly.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 16, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Ok, now you say that hetero-sexual's can be bad or just as bad also, so we do understand that there is an admitting that bad can exist on both sides of the situation, but to what degree does this bad exist in either case studies now talked about I wonder ? Is there any good measuring stick for these statistics to be known ? Now does gay parenting (all depending) increase the bad (i.e. add to the bad) or does it decrease the bad (i.e. actually lessons the bad) for the children ? How is any of it actually measured other than the studies or findings that are reported on or investigated within the layers? Has there ever been a thorough investigation into these things, and if so what were the findings, because it is important for you and everyone to know. When children are at risk, it is important to know the patterns of both hetero and gay in which puts them at risk, wouldn't you agree ?
> 
> If the findings are egregious on either fronts, then the study needs to reveal what and why they are in this way. Then action needs to be taken in order to save the children from abusive situations, but no one can do that if they don't understand the patterns or the situations if such stats are hidden or not spoken about honestly.



The "studies" have all been debunked. Think logically...would the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association ALL have policy statements in support of gay parenting if there was any validity to them?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, now you say that hetero-sexual's can be bad or just as bad also, so we do understand that there is an admitting that bad can exist on both sides of the situation, but to what degree does this bad exist in either case studies now talked about I wonder ? Is there any good measuring stick for these statistics to be known ? Now does gay parenting (all depending) increase the bad (i.e. add to the bad) or does it decrease the bad (i.e. actually lessons the bad) for the children ? How is any of it actually measured other than the studies or findings that are reported on or investigated within the layers? Has there ever been a thorough investigation into these things, and if so what were the findings, because it is important for you and everyone to know. When children are at risk, it is important to know the patterns of both hetero and gay in which puts them at risk, wouldn't you agree ?
> ...



Every single one of those entities you mentioned is beholden/takes their walking instructions from the American Psychological Association.  What's wrong with that?  Maybe that a cabal of gay people overtook it in the 1970s, summarily removed themselves from the DSM and then quietly "disappeared" the ruling Leona Tyler principle from the bedrock of its structure.  It was perhaps to date the most insidious infiltration in the "let's inappropriately access children" movement of the church of LGBT I can think of.



> *A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA*), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, *says that the APA has been taken over by &#8220;ultraliberals&#8221; beholden to the &#8220;gay rights movement,&#8221; *who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality.
> 
> Dr. Nicholas Cummings was President of the APA from 1979 to 1980, and also served as a member of the organization&#8217;s Council of Representatives. He served for years as Chief of Mental Health with the Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance Organization, and is the author of the book &#8220;Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm.&#8221;
> 
> In an interview with representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in late April, *Cummings said that the organization&#8217;s problems began with the rejection of the Leona Tyler Principle, which required that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence *Anglican Mainstream » Blog Archive » Former president of APA says organization controlled by ?gay rights? movement






> The APA &#8220;started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s,&#8221; said Cummings.  &#8220;By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle was absolutely forgotten, that *political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA*.&#8221;...
> 
> ...&#8220;The first time it came up, and I was a member of [the] Council, this would have been, oh, 1975, because I remember that that&#8217;s when I made the resolution,&#8221; Cummings said. &#8220;I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was characterological. And it passed the Council of Representatives. And that was the first issue that came up. I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. Unbiased, open research. It was never done.&#8221; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fo...rganization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement


I'll stick with the Mayo Clinic and the CDC and the compilation in Canada of 300 researchers who all agree that the evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is learned and learned from social or other environmental pressures.  You don't replace scientific studies with political ones and cite them to run all the world of psychology and medicine.

When you do, you get things happening like MDs performing amputations on perfectly healthy organs in stark violation of the hippocratic oath of medicine.  Like in the case of enabling the mental issues of so-called transsexuals by helping them mutilate their bodies instead of helping them come to terms with the body they were born in.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 16, 2014)

Sil, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Fail.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
> 
> Fail.



These aren't "my facts":



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of *depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...





> Mayo Clinic 2007
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> ...







> Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
> 
> James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada  http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 16, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are at risk. 

Because seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law has no rational basis, is not supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues no proper legislative end, such laws are un-Constitutional, and are invalidated accordingly. 

Amendment 3 sought only to make gay Americans different from everyone else. This [Utah] cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. _Romer v. Evans_ (1996). 

Consequently the children at risk argument fails, its merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 16, 2014)

And yet, oddly, Sil's argument isn't winning in court (or in public opinion). Why is that I wonder? Could it be because the sane world doesn't discount the professional opinion of well renowned organizations and peer reviewed journals? 

The scientific community is in agreement that sexual orientation is not a choice or a "learned behavior". You can't make yourself gay or straight (which is why "reparative therapy" has a success rate under 10% and is dismissed by the medical and psychological community and junk science).


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 16, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> [
> 
> There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are at risk. ...
> 
> ... the children at risk argument fails, its merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.



Except orphaned children that via marriage in Utah can then be accessed by the new initiates into the top-tier preference: and the lawsuits they will file then if denied.

This presents a problem to Utah's orphans.  Over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Canada and Mexico lobbied fiercely to have the Harvey Milk postage stamp issued.  Harvey Milk is renowned by the LGBT community for being the first openly gay man to hold a public office.

Only, "openly gay" meant in his case, sodomizing teen orphaned/runaway boys on drugs, one after the other.  Several of them committed suicide as a result.  

Worse still, knowing this, those 60 LGBT groups promoted him anyway as representative of the values of the LGBT movement.  So that presents a problem for Utah's "only married people can adopt" issue:


----------



## Barb (Feb 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



you have red coming each and every time you falsely tie pedophilia with homosexuality. every. fucking. time. "several of them?" you lying skank. Meanwhile, that man had problems all his own, ones that had NO relationship with Harvey Milk.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 16, 2014)

Barb said:


> you have red coming each and every time you falsely tie pedophilia with homosexuality. every. fucking. time. "several of them?" you lying skank. Meanwhile, that man had problems all his own, ones that had NO relationship with Harvey Milk.


'

People can verify whether or not I am "lying" by reading the biography of Harvey Milk.  And they can verify what you stand for by reading your autobiography here at this website as it unfolds...


----------



## jodylee (Feb 16, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News
> ...



so you agree with Puttin?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 16, 2014)

Yurt said:


> clayton, can states violate your civil rights?
> 
> yes or no.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 16, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > you have red coming each and every time you falsely tie pedophilia with homosexuality. every. fucking. time. "several of them?" you lying skank. Meanwhile, that man had problems all his own, ones that had NO relationship with Harvey Milk.
> ...



You lie every time you open your cake flap, Silly.  Are you CAPABLE of discerning the truth from a lie anymore?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sil, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
> ...



They are medical issues, not constitutional barriers.

Yes, it is only your opinion.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 16, 2014)

Yurt said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



jake is more stupid than a retard


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



As has been correctly stated several times, this is neither objective nor documented.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 16, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Sandusky was convicted of child sex abuse.  Milk was never convicted, charged, or arrested.  In fact, the only evidence is unsubstantiated accusations.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 16, 2014)

Yurt said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > clayton, can states violate your civil rights?
> ...



clayton?????


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



However, in all cases of child protective laws, one only has to have reasonable suspicion, like a biography accessible to all the 60+ LGBT groups that petitioned to have the postage stamp of Harvey Milk issued this year with the rainbow "USA" logo at the top right hand corner, to act on behalf of protecting children.

If you fail to act upon reasonable suspicion, without any hard proof necessary, you can be prosecuted.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Are you, in your hatred of others you don't like, insane?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 16, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No I was talking about the kings stooges overturning colonial law, the practice you are basing your praise of judicial review on.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 16, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Wrong on so many counts.

*Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.  * 


In "Mayor of Castor Street", Shilts biography of Harvey Milk, he does not accuse Milk of any sexual abuse, He alleges that there was a relationship between Milk and John "Jack" Galen McKinley, a teenager which of course is enough for any Homophobe to conclude sexual abuse.  However, it's unlikely that Child Protective Services would see it as such, particular since McKinley was not underage.  McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.)

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Mayor-Castro-Street-Harvey/dp/0312560850/ref=cm_aya_orig_subj]The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk: Randy Shilts: 9780312560850: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 16, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I guess it will be the children themselves over time, that will ultimately report as to whether it was a problem or not, so time will tell I guess as to whether people are wrong or they were right about these things. Don't you agree ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 16, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



The doctrine of judicial review in the US is not similar to the removal of the King's trial from the colonies to GB.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Wrong on so many counts.
> 
> *Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.  *
> 
> ...



It is well known and documented that Harvey Milk had sex with the minor Jack McKinley who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.  Reasonable suspicion is the documentation of that and many other sordid sexual behavior of Harvey Milk in Milk's biography, that Milk freely admitted to other people at the time.  

People know that about him and defend it.  We'll let the courts sort out whether or not the 60 + LGBT groups that promoted his postage stamp and the laws in California requiring school kids to celebrate that he was the first "openly gay man" to hold a public office is reflective of the culture's values.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



your just being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


16, 17 or whatever, but wasn't this Milk guy in his 40's, and did he officiate as the young man's father as is claimed ? Is it that a 17 or 18 year old in the courts opinion back in the day, had intended that they be in relationships with people closer to their age, and not 20 years older than them (i.e. old enough to be their father), so otherwise when they ruled on the age of consent ruling for young teens who are of the age of 17 or 18 years old, did they think these things would happen in what is happening today ? If they figured that these young people were to be propositioned by people that are that much older than they are, then I wonder if they would have ever ruled in that way in hindsight of now ? Maybe they should have put some stipulations on what age people could visit and/or not re-visit certain ages when it comes to teens who are still this young ? For example if a teen is 17 (more than likely still in high school), then no one above the age of say 25 (a cut off age), can actually ask such a person out on a date or to try and date them, and then it is only with parental consent if they do try and date a person this young, otherwise if the older person is at the age of 25 or less.. Man 25 might even be to old, where as it may be that  a 4 year span would be the correct bracket between the two. What say you ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Disagree. 

Research has already determined that children living in homes with unmarried same-sex parents are just as happy and well-adjusted as those living with opposite-sex parents. 

For example: 



> *Children raised by gay couples show good progress through school*
> 
> By mining data from the 2000 Census, sociologist Michael Rosenfeld figured out the rates at which kids raised by gay and straight couples repeated a grade during elementary or middle school. *He found that children of same-sex parents have essentially the same educational achievement as their peers growing up in heterosexual households. *
> 
> Children raised by gay couples show good progress through school



Consequently, and again, the notion that children who live with same-sex parents are somehow at risk is completely unfounded, and has no bearing whatsoever as to the right of gay Americans to access marriage law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 17, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



As youre being willfully ignorant.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 17, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



I am being very clear.  You are calling the removal of where a trial would be held (to GB) the antecedents of our judicial review.  It is not.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 17, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> I guess it will be the children themselves over time, that will ultimately report as to whether it was a problem or not, so time will tell I guess as to whether people are wrong or they were right about these things. Don't you agree ?



We've already heard from them. They're fine.

_"Good evening, Mr. Chairman," the young man said. "My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women."

"Over the next two hours, I'm sure we're going to hear plenty of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But in my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple.

"And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character..."​_
Here's what the American Academy of Pediatrics had to say:

_A great deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship between parents&#8217; sexual orientation and children&#8217;s well-being, according to the AAP policy. In fact, many studies attest to the normal development of children of same-gender couples when the child is wanted, the parents have a commitment to shared parenting, and the parents have strong social and economic support. Critical factors that affect the normal development and mental health of children are parental stress, economic and social stability, community resources, discrimination, and children&#8217;s exposure to toxic stressors at home or in their communities -- not the sexual orientation of their parents._


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 17, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong on so many counts.
> ...



More lies Sil?

Born	Harvey Bernard Milk, *May* 22, 1930

Jack Galen McKinley committed suicide on *February* 14th 1980


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> More lies Sil?
> 
> Born	Harvey Bernard Milk, *May* 22, 1930
> 
> Jack Galen McKinley committed suicide on *February* 14th 1980



You know, I stand corrected.  He jumped to his death on Valentine's Day at the exact age Milk was, 33, when Milk started sodomizing him as a 16 year old minor in New York.

Maybe it would be a good idea for readers here to read The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk to really get a feel for the facts?

What do you think, Seawytch?  Should as many people as possible read Milk's biography by Randy Shilts?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 17, 2014)

Flopper said:


> *Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.  *
> 
> 
> In "Mayor of Castor Street", Shilts biography of Harvey Milk, he does not accuse Milk of any sexual abuse, He alleges that there was a relationship between Milk and John "Jack" Galen McKinley, a teenager which of course is enough for any Homophobe to conclude sexual abuse.  However, it's unlikely that Child Protective Services would see it as such, particular since McKinley was not underage.  McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.)
> ...





Silhouette said:


> Maybe it would be a good idea for readers here to read The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk to really get a feel for the facts?
> 
> What do you think, Seawytch?  Should as many people as possible read Milk's biography by Randy Shilts?




Last I checked 1964-1946 = 18 so the youngest (if Randy Shilts data is correct, remember you are saying his biography is correct) is 17 (depending on the day of the year).

New York age of consent is 17.  ("New York - The age of consent is 17." -->> Statutory Rape: The Age of Consent | LegalMatch Law Library)



>>>>


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I suppose you could also include that example as an instance of the judicial overreach, by the king's stooges. 

heres a link to that modern stooge judge, (and supporting federal court aides & clerks) that dont know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration.  Ironically a female judge who quotes "all MEN are created equal" and gets the source wrong.   Rushes the opinion out in an egotistic attempt to get her name in the history books with a valentines day opinion. 

Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Confuses Declaration of Independence with Constitution


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 17, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Do you understand that your examples are ones that reveal an executive effort to remove judges and trials from the influence of colonial legislatures influencing such by withholding money?

The problem was the King's executive power not the courts.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 17, 2014)

You people have went full retard.

There is NO right to adopt, and thus a private adoption agency SHOULD have the right to tell anyone to GTFO if they don't want to adopt to them.

I mean, if you actually believe in freedom, which millions of Americans do not.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 17, 2014)

That's true BillyZane.  People do not have an automatic right to adopt....for now...the church of LGBT is advancing on that though.  First things first.  They have to advance to marriage before they can start suing adoption agencies for "discrimination against LGBT people' for not automatically rubber stamping fresh meat...er...I mean "adoptable kids" into their custody.  Fun fact.  I know two devoted lifelong gay men partners who took in a teen boy who was a minor at the time and they simultaneously officiate as his fathers and they have sex with him too.  They keep it all in the family that way.



WorldWatcher said:


> Last I checked 1964-1946 = 18 so the youngest (if Randy Shilts data is correct, remember you are saying his biography is correct) is 17 (depending on the day of the year).
> 
> New York age of consent is 17.  ("New York - The age of consent is 17." -->> Statutory Rape: The Age of Consent | LegalMatch Law Library



Right, the age of consent then as now in New York was/is 17.  

However, Jack McKinley was 16, addled on drugs and mentally ill/suicidal when Milk began sodomizing him.  That's three felony counts of sodomy:



> One of Milk&#8217;s victims was a *16-year-old *runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street
> 
> Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the &#8220;LGBT&#8221; community.
> 
> Shilts was also Harvey Milk&#8217;s biographer. In his glowing book &#8220;The Mayor of Castro Street,&#8221; he wrote of Milk&#8217;s &#8220;relationship&#8221; with the McKinley boy: &#8221; &#8230; *Sixteen-year-old McKinley *was looking for some kind of father figure. &#8230; *At 33, Milk *was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which *his new lover *would pull him.&#8221; Sexual Predator Honored With US Postal Stamp



Those quotes were taken directly from Milk's biography in the last paragraph above.

That the poor boy was looking for a father figure and found the sexual predator Harvey Milk instead, willing to "act" like a father figure while he was simultaneously sodomizing the suicidal boy on drugs, and that he went on to finally kill himself makes Harvey Milk's crimes aggravated.  The boy I mentioned that I know who is very similar to Milk's twinks/sons is also very unstable mentally now.  Well, you can imagine getting prison raped until you "like it" by two men you thought were your fathers..  Does a number on the old childhood-development thing...  Can't go near the situation because of the LGBT stronghold on the legal system and because the boy is now "of age" and "is happy with his situation"..a la Stockholm Syndrome..

His mother thinks it's neat because even though she's straight, she has a few gay and lesbian friends who all encourage her to love and accept the situation as "healthy" for her son.  She refuses to press charges and god help her if she did.  They'd burn her house down.  Starting to see the cult aspect yet?  Don't worry, you will.  Only let's hope it's not set in legal stone by then...


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 17, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> You people have went full retard.
> 
> There is NO right to adopt, and thus a private adoption agency SHOULD have the right to tell anyone to GTFO if they don't want to adopt to them.
> 
> I mean, if you actually believe in freedom, which millions of Americans do not.




Nobody is arguing that a *private* adoption agency shouldn't be able to tell anyone to "GFTO". Why create arguments where there is none?


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose you could also include that example as an instance of the judicial overreach, by the king's stooges.
> ...



What?, your not making any sense. I think the kings executive power was tied in with the courts...it was a monarchy.

Dont bother replying im not going to


----------



## Yurt (Feb 17, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



yes, jakestarkey is a troll and should not be fed


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Nobody is arguing that a *private* adoption agency shouldn't be able to tell anyone to "GFTO". Why create arguments where there is none?



Yet plenty of people belonging to the cult of LGBT are _already_ arguing that private cakemakers and photographers don't have rights to refuse service...odd how you are for either side of the fence only so long as it always favors LGBT inroads into all minds of society.

It will start with public adoption agencies, once the faithful in the church of Harvey Milk get their toe in the door via marriage.

Then the lawsuits will progress into private adoption agencies.  From there, finally, even religious organizations like catholic orphanages will be told they no longer can consider a person's membership in a cult that worships a pedophile like Harvey Milk is not fit for adopting.  

From there, religious freedom itself will be in question.

It's all quite elementary if you understand the insidious and nearly invisible progression of blind "justice" and legal precedent.  Thank goodness there's people like me, Beagle, Craelin etc. who are keeping this progression nice and lit up with floodlights 24/7.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 17, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



So you admit defeat.

Smart.

The trials were withdrawn to GB so that the colonial legislatures could not interfere with them.

This had nothing to do with the doctrine of judicial review.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 17, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Yet plenty of people belonging to the cult of LGBT are"



Their is not cult, honey.

Come back to earth, please.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yet plenty of people belonging to the cult of LGBT are"
> ...



Only a cult would say "don't worry, we won't force private orphanges to adopt to us." at the same time they are suing private christian cakemakers and photographers to be forced to cater to their "weddings".

The progression is slow, steady and just under the radar.  Just how a cult operates in any other venue...  I repeat:



> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody is arguing that a *private* adoption agency shouldn't be able to tell anyone to "GFTO". Why create arguments where there is none?
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> We've already heard from them. They're fine.
> 
> _"Good evening, Mr. Chairman," the young man said. "My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women."
> 
> ...



I've already explained about the past APA president who said that the APA has been taken over by a gay cabal in the 1970s-1980s.  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fo...rganization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement  The American Academy of Pediatrics defers to the APA's political stances so for what it's worth: precisely zero.  It's like getting an opinion from a NASCAR driver if he thinks exceeding the speed limit is a good idea.

You say "we already heard from them" meaning kids of gay parents.  Looks to me like you've already heard from _him_, not them.  I know two identical twin girls raised by lesbians.  One of the lesbians was the "man" lesbian [looked, acted like, spoke like, walked like, dressed like a truck driver guy] and the other one was inexplicably attracted to her...I digress...oh anyway, the two identical twin girls grew up one hetero, married with kids she had with her husband, the other, a butch lesbian.  Both have issues.  Huge mental issues.

But yeah, you got one kid to stand up and self-diagnose for a crowd to assure everyone on earth that the unexplored realm of hidden strangenesses that make up the church of LGBT are "perfectly fine to raise kids under".

All with a stamp of approval from the APA's offshoot, the AAP...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 17, 2014)

Good luck everyone, and may God have mercy upon us all if we choose not to be honest about these things that are discussed on many of the important issues, and this whether upon these message boards or in life itself.  I think that all the important issues are being discussed for the betterment of ones own family, friends, and the society in which we all live in as a whole. It is important to get educated about the many issues out there today, and if we do allow exposures to our young that leave them abused, vulnerable, and weak in any instance, and this instead of strong, proud, educated and informed, then may God have mercy upon us all because we are going to need it for sure when we meet him. 

For those who have experienced a lot of things in their lives already, then may the Lord be with you in your lives, and may he comfort and guide you to a higher plain as you ask him for forgiveness, and may he take us all into a better understanding of that which is he who holds the keys to life and of death, and to find that he loves us always, and yet it is his plan to seperate us from our sins in life, otherwise in order to set us free, but we have to allow that to happen first, and we must do it by choice. 

All have sinned and come short of the Glory, and upon that cross our sins have been covered by the blood of the lamb Jesus Christ, so rejoice in the lord this day upon all whom believe, and do seek after the truth as the truth shall set you free, and so therefore be patient with all of those who are family and our friends in life, for it is written and it shall be done. Amen !


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 17, 2014)

Nothing's done that quick.  They haven't even heard oral arguments yet at the 10th circuit.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 17, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong on so many counts.
> ...


Jack McKinley was either 17 or 18 which is above the age of consent when Milk met him therefore there was no child sexual abuse.  You choose to ignore this but it is a fact.

Shilts makes many minor factual errors. (The most notorious is his implication that John "Jack" Galen McKinley was sixteen years old when he moved in with Milk. McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.) Because Shilts includes a remarkably small number of specific dates (I highlighted all dates in my copy and was startled by how few I could find), he sometimes scrambles the sequences of events. This is especially true of the section describing Milk's involvement in Broadway shows with legendary director Tom O'Horgan.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mayor-Cas...reviews/0312560850?pageNumber=2&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 17, 2014)

Scriptures tell us that the very elect (which I am sure that beagle9 and Sil with whom include themselves) will be deceived.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 18, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > We've already heard from them. They're fine.
> ...



Yes Sil, we know YOU discount all the major medical associations because of a disgruntled former employee of a single organization. Sane people do not. 

Our kids are fine, Sil and parenting has nothing to do with marriage equality. Keep flailing though, it only helps marriage equality.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 18, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Jack McKinley was either 17 or 18 which is above the age of consent when Milk met him therefore there was no child sexual abuse.  You choose to ignore this but it is a fact.



Randy Shilts, Milk's biographer, was gay, a good friend of Harvey Milk and more importantly, an accredited journalist known, famous for actually, his hard-lined adherence to the truth and facts when he reported.  Gays used to spit on him in fact as he walked through the Castro district for being a traitor.  Mr. Shilts reported on the AIDS epidemic spreading [he died ot it himself] and his open objections to public bathhouses as the main culprit.

Randy Shilts wrote in Milk's biography of Milk's affair with young teen Jack McKinley these words:



> _"*Sixteen-year-old *McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. &#8230; At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.&#8221;_



So, either Mr. Shilts the accredited journalist famous for taking heat for reporting only the facts, even from his own friends, stepped out of staunch character just to write those words, or you, Flopper, are wilfully misrepresenting the truth in order to make excuses for the inexcusable.

Since nobody here knows you, nor has any reason to respect you as an accredited journalist famous for telling the truth, I guess we'll have to err on the side of Randy Shilts who knew Harvey Milk personally and was probably the most credible eyewitness the world could hope for as to accurate details of Milk's life and how old his "lovers/victims" were...

The age of consent in New York when and where Harvey Milk plucked this "young waif with substance abuse problem.." was 17.  Ergo, Harvey Milk sodomized a mentally ill, drug addicted teen orphaned MINOR boy, while officiating as his father figure.

That's three felony counts of child sexual assault involving sodomy.  Sandusky went to prison for that.  Harvey Milk gets 60 LGBT groups petitioning successfully, the US Postal service to commission a rainbow "USA' stamp of Harvey Milk instead.  He is their cultural hero.  His sexuality stands aligned with their own.

Houston, we have a problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 18, 2014)

Sil, it is you who is wildly mischaracterizing the writing to twist it to fit your cultlike demagoguery.


----------



## Barb (Feb 18, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Jack McKinley was either 17 or 18 which is above the age of consent when Milk met him therefore there was no child sexual abuse.  You choose to ignore this but it is a fact.
> ...



Accredited by whom? He could have been well - meaning enough and still be wrong / sloppy, but I smell ambition. If one is part of a minority group, the best way to become successful is to sell them out. See Phyllis Schaffly. 

 And what's with this "we" shit? NOBODY but green bean and gspys follows you with anything but a groan and a snicker.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 18, 2014)

Barb said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I scanned the "Mayor of Castro Street" at the library this morning looking for Galen and could find only one quote where the author mentioned Galen's age and it was incorrect because Galen was at least 17 at that time.  The rest of the reported quotes aren't from the book.  They've copied from anti-gay and defense of marriage web sites.

And what does a 40 year old affair between two gays, both dead have to do with a  U.S. Supreme Court decision to stop gay marriage in Utah?  *Absolutely Nothing.*

Getting back to the subject at hand, a Supreme Court decision early this year now seems likely which will not only address the Utah ban, but also the recent court decisions that have struck down gay marriage bans in Virginian and Utah.  The decision may or may not effect the Kentucky decision that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Increasingly, the judges are saying they can see no legitimate justification for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. With the Supreme Court having said that states cannot validly base marriage laws on traditional religious disapproval of homosexuality, the remaining justifications offered to defend the laws fail to pass muster, the judges have ruled.

Same-sex marriage moving swiftly back toward Supreme Court - latimes.com


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 18, 2014)

Barb said:


> Accredited by whom? He could have been well - meaning enough and still be wrong / sloppy, but I smell ambition. If one is part of a minority group, the best way to become successful is to sell them out. See Phyllis Schaffly.
> 
> And what's with this "we" shit? NOBODY but green bean and gspys follows you with anything but a groan and a snicker.



I believe that when Randy Shilts says Harvey Milk took a 16 year old street "waif" "with substance abuse problems" as his lover, that he was in a position and of the highest credibility as a researcher and an eyewitness to have reported the account of that crime against a minor accurately.



> ...the career of Randy Shilts, author of "And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic," who died of AIDS himself...
> 
> ...Shilts' sense of purpose was passionate and he never backed down from his own most controversial beliefs. And Shilts' own success manifestly delighted him. Being both feisty and cocky, naturally, he made enemies. The late Bob Ross, editor and publisher of the Bay Area Reporter, described Shilts as a traitor to his own kind. In part that was because in stories he wrote for The Chronicle, where in 1981 he became the first openly gay employee, he advocated the closing of gay bathhouses as a means of containing the spread of AIDS. Asking people to forsake a sexual freedom that was so new and enthralling led to Shilts' being spat upon on Castro Street.
> 
> ...



Again, Randy Shilts own words publicized and thoroughly researched, understood and witnessed by him:



> "Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. &#8230; At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.&#8221;


----------



## Barb (Feb 19, 2014)

So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 19, 2014)

Barb said:


> So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.



I didn't write that article.  It was written by the San Francisco Chronicle.  There is no simple math to it.  Randy Shilts knew him, knew he took Jack Mckinley at *16*, a minor, as his "lover".

You weren't there.  The accredited journalist was.  Simply and blatantly lying to try to cover up a crime against a minor is a crime in itself.  I don't mean that figuratively either.  What you're up to here is actually on the books as a prosecutable crime.  I'd be careful..


----------



## Barb (Feb 20, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.
> ...



delusional you.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 20, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.
> ...



_Milk's address book, in which he wrote the birthdates of people he knew, gives McKinley's date of birth as October 18, 1946. Milk's address book is in the Milk-Smith Collection, James C. Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center, San Francisco Public Library._

Who would know better, your "accredited journalist" or Harvey Milk who wrote his birthday down?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 20, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



The statistics of births and deaths in the County where Jack McKinley was born, should be the final word, along with Shilts reputation of being acutely thorough in his reasearch.  However, there are other indicators.  Since every bio I've ever seen of Jack McKinley online states his birth as 1947, NOT 1946, we know that the boy was 16.  Moreover, your redacted Diary that you will next argue was proof that "at least Milk didn't have reason to suspect McKinley was underaged" [ie: that he believed he was older at the time] is hogwash for two reasons:

1. That the accredited journalist/biographer of Harvey Milk, Randy Shilts, knew Jack to have been 16 at the time.  Remember, Shilts was a good friend of Milk's and knew his facts before he published.

2. Harvey Milk took Jack Mckinley to start an investment account as a guardian for McKinley.  When he did, the broker said to him: "What you&#8217;re really talking about is opening an account for the boy you&#8217;ve got living with you. Right?&#8221;

When you take someone to open a bank account, as their "guardian", there are a couple of things that are implied and accepted:

A. That Milk knew McKinley was underaged.  Why else would he need a guardian?  This happened in California when McKinley was STILL underaged as Milk was sodomizing him/acting as his father.

B. That Milk had to have known that McKinley was born in 1947 because as a condition of opening a bank account, even then, accurate identification and birthday were/are required.  

So, your "Milk wrote down in his diary" BS is just that: pure crap.  

Noted, once again, another LGBT activist is here defending three felony counts of child sexual abuse:

1. Milk's sodomizing a legal minor for years [after beginning in New York with minor 16 year old McKinley, he moved him across state lines, in violation also of the MANN Act, and continued sodomizing him in California as he remained a minor there until he was 18.]

2. Milk's sodomizing that same minor under the same conditions who Milk knew to be mentally ill/suicidal as a result of his natural father being abusive to him; while Milk was officiating as McKinley's father also.

3. Milk's sodomizing that same minor under the conditions that Milk knew that boy was also suffering with drug addiction.

Three felony counts.  You won't catch _me_ at least trying to cover up for/make excuses for sexual abuse of a minor boy.  Galen "Jack" McKinley's birthday can be researched.  Milk knew of it.  And Milk knew he was having sex with a minor the entire years he was doing it.  Mckinley was legally incapable of consent on three counts.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 20, 2014)

An update:



> *Several groups, including those whose religions are normally at odds theologically, are supporting Utah *as a federal appeals court in Denver considers the constitutionality of its gay marriage ban.
> 
> "Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge on a critical point: that the traditional, husband-wife definition of marriage is vital to the welfare of children, families and society," says an amicus brief filed by several churches and religious groups.
> 
> ...



It seems the "support for gay marriage" isn't as robust as media spin doctors would have everyone believe.

Oral arguments are scheduled to begin April 10th, 2014 in the 10th Circuit court of appeals.

Excerpts:



> INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
> 
> 1  *Amici  are eighty-one members of the Utah Legislature.*
> 
> ...


_

That brief was written in the spirit of the decision in Windsor and its lengthy discussion of how a state has a vested interest in the sculpting of the nature of marriage that defines how members of a discreet community interact with each other.  Utah has 104 total legislators.  81 of those signed on to the amicus brief above.  That is 78% of the Utah legislature in favor of Utah's man-woman marriage statutes._


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 20, 2014)

SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 20, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.


In the short run that's how it would appear.  But in the long run she is doing her fellows an infinite service by disclosing what's really going on...  Think: The American Psychological Association...


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 20, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.




Oh, care to elaborate? 

You're doing the equality movement enough favors for both of us anyway. Sil helps a lot.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 20, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.
> ...



I'm pro allowing fags to marry you dummy.

I'm equally pro being allowed to tell them to shove it up their asses when they try to force others to do business with them, but it has nothing to do with gay. It has to do with my fundamental belief that the Constitution gives us the freedom to discriminate , no matter how distasteful it may be.

That's the part people like you don't get, and probably never will. Well, to put it more bluntly, you don't WANT to get it. You have no Constitutionally protected right to force me to like you or to business with you.  Oh sure , you can dishonestly claim that forcing people not to discriminate is simply regulating , but it isn't and deep down you know it.

But the part you REALLY don't get is that I can be PRO allowing people to discriminate while at the same time being against discrimination. Or actually I'm not against discrimination , I'm for it in some cases; because I believe a business owner should be able to hang up a big sign that says "no gays" if he wishes, likewise I'd discriminate and not do business with him. See how that works? Probably not.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 20, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> I'm pro allowing fags to marry you dummy.





Is there a reason you felt compelled to use the word "fag" there?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 20, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...




The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 21, 2014)

The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.

Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.

End of story.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 21, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.
> 
> Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.
> 
> End of story.



The boy was 16, a minor and the vital statistics in the county where he was born can prove this.

Was Shilts also wrong that Harvey Milk took the still minor Jack Mckinley, officiating as his guardian no less, to a banker to start an investment account?  In order to start that account, Milk had to have known Mckinley was a minor and had to have seen his birthdate on identification Mckinley would have to have had at the time.

Your "documentation" is a redacted diary at a museum in San Francisco and that is supposed to be superior to the vital statistics in the county where Galen Jack McKinley was born in 1947???

Defending sexual abuse of a minor is a crime Jake.  You should take note as well...  Why did Milk officiate as the boy's legal guardian when he took him to the bank Jake?  Was that because he knew the boy was a minor?  He even wrote letters to another minor he had his eyes on, urging him to run away from his parents' home and come be with him.  You are defending a serial sexual abuser of troubled teen boys.  I hope you are aware of that.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 21, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



The Court got it wrong, and sadly morons like you do not understand that protecting our RIGHT to do with our property as we please should take precedence over ANYTHING, no matter how distasteful some people are in exercising those rights


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 21, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > *The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays*.
> ...



What do blacks and jews and muslims have to do with gays?  The LGBTers haven't formally formed a church yet have they?  If not, they have nothing to do with race or federally recognized religions...


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 21, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



What they have to do with it, is the federal government is not constitutionally empowered to carve out ANY exceptions to where they can force people to do business with each other.

Without major twisting of the document a person can not find ANYWHERE in the COTUS where the government is empowered to enforce the Civil Rights Act. 

And the odd thing is, the federal government has always picked and choosed to which parties they will force to do what, while ignoring other violations of this unconstitutional law, and people just ignore that.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 21, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



Sorry, my points were more directed to Seawytch.  She starts her rants under false premises and bulls forward as if they are concrete fact.  From that she "concludes" false findings.

Blacks are a race, millions of years old.  Jews are a religion, federally recognized and thousands of years old. Muslims are a religion, federally recognized and thousands of years old.  LGBT is a cult, a few decades old and not either a race of people, nor a federally recogized religion.

They do have a messiah though, Harvey Milk.  And they do evangelize as a matter of law no less [see California law requiring the celebration of the LGBT messiah in schools], and their numbers are on the massive increase.  But they are not a religion.  They are not a race.  Apples and oranges.  Did you get that Seawytch?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.
> 
> Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.
> 
> End of story.


16, 17, 18, I mean does it really matter within the context of the entire story here ? Technicalities are something a lawyer is looking for when trying to get his client off in a murder trial when he knows his client is guilty, but isn't it just that a* technicality *and not* justice *as it should be sought after in a case as presented by all who are involved? What it seems here, is that some are looking for a technicality in order to win the argument, and so it appears that there is not a good sound judgment or rational being sought after upon the entire circumstances of the story that is being discussed by some here.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 22, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



Then go right ahead and repeal public accommodation laws but until then they apply to us in 21 states and you can just shut the fuck up and get me my coffee. I have to get you your coffee in all 50 because I can't discriminate against religious cooks.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



What does discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus have to do with discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus? Surely you can figure that one out all on your own, can't you?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> What does discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus have to do with discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus? Surely you can figure that one out all on your own, can't you?



Compulsive gamblers are a minority too.  Why should they be discriminated against when it comes to getting credit?  Shouldn't they form a group that seeks to redefine the word "credit" to mean "a guarantee of a loan to anyone, no matter what their spending orientation, or a lawsuit"?  

Behaviors are behaviors.  The incomplete grouping of sexual deviants known as LGBT will be the SCOTUS' primary concern.  What compulsive behaviors will group together next to pray for special inclusion on privelges like marriage, or credit, or...?

After all, if the self-diagnosed feel they were "born that way", how can we close the door on each new compulsion that knocks on the door of SCOTUS.  Their lawyers will know how to cite precedent.  That's something the Justices will have to honestly back up into outer space and look far off into the future to determine..


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > What does discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus have to do with discrimination against a minority group based purely on animus? Surely you can figure that one out all on your own, can't you?
> ...


I think these things are already going on as a result of it all Sil, I mean look at all the new thinking that is being considered now, and all the new legislation that is being considered now in relation to it all. Like you and many others say " where does it all make sense anymore", and where do people stand up for what they believe in anymore ? Will the nation have to split into many sectors in order to satisfy everyone or all the different groups finally ? What will be tried or attempted next one wonders ? Once the genie is out of that bottle, will it be any specific genie that the nation will be regretting one day or will it all somehow just mesh together one day ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 22, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.
> ...



Thank you for bringing out that the issue above is a criminal matter.

The story itself has no relevance to the case before the circuit court.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 22, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



*No, you could not and be right.*


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You may be interpreting my reasoning behind the message I wrote wrong maybe, where as I was making a comparison about the tactic in which is being used here to refocus or to put it all on the age of the boy in which we are seeing so much focus on in this way.

It is basically making a case for a technicality to be used to distract from the core of the issue that is being discovered on whole here or is being reviewed on whole here. Just as a technicality works in other cases in these ways, it does the same here by refocusing the case in order to take the mind off of the rest of the case at hand, and so I think that is what was being sought after here when you all spent so much time on the age thing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



No, the issue is completely irrelevant. 

Those who bring up pedophilia or other irrelevant nonsense concerning the equal protection rights of gay Americans do so only as an attempt at demagoguery; its also a concession on their part that theyve lost the argument, whether theyre aware of it or not.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, the issue is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Those who bring up &#8216;pedophilia&#8217; or other irrelevant nonsense concerning the equal protection rights of gay Americans do so only as an attempt at demagoguery; it&#8217;s also a concession on their part that they&#8217;ve lost the argument, whether they&#8217;re aware of it or not.



The sexual behavior icon sodomizing a 16 year old minor who continued to be a minor for two more years as he transported him across state lines to California, where he officiated as his guardian also..that boy being on drugs exacerbating the crime...and mentally ill exacerbating it further...and the string of other homeless teens on drugs that Harvey Milk sodomized...is very relevant.

When we see here people reminded of the boys age, his status as a minor etc. and they lie in order to cover for Milk, saying the boy was older than he really was, or they defend these crimes as excusable when gays are involved...that creates HUGE relevance when Utah is considering opening the door to the legal shoehorn [marriage] that the cult of LGBT will then use to access minor orphans in that state.

HUGE relevance.  Over 60 groups who knew Harvey Milk's bio well, petitioned tirelessly to have his mug on a US Postage stamp with rainbow 'USA' at the top.  

HUGE relevance...


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 23, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Milk was brought up as the distraction. You know that. What does Harvey Milk have to do with marriage equality? Absolutely nothing. Let it go. Both parties are dead so re-litigating something that was never litigated in the first place is silly. 

You might ask; Why is Sil trying to distract from the discussion on marriage equality with discussions about a guy who has been dead for decades?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 23, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again. 

There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.
> 
> There in lay the problem in which Sil is heavily focused upon with all of this, and then she looks into the persons character to find that he was a bad man for whom should have no day of remembrance in honor of at all, and so she digs a little more deeper and finds that certain groups or people are responsible for this stamp and such in which he is honored by, and then she digs a little deeper, and even a little more deeper. See how all that works ?



Seawytch knows this.  She wants the topic dropped as yet another de facto assistance to the past crimes of Harvey Milk.  She doesn't want the public knowing what he did to the 16 year old minor boy, dragging him across state lines from New York to California where he remained a minor for two more years while Milk switched between sodomizing him and officiating as his legal guardian.  

She doesn't want the fact that a gay accredited journalist and friend of Harvey Milk jotted down all this information for ANYONE to read.  Most especially those of the 60 + LGBT groups from the US, Mexico and Canada who petitioned tirelessly for their messiah to be immortalized as an LGBT icon yet again, on a US Postage stamp.

No, this discussion of how tightly knit the sexuality of Harvey Milk is with those who admire him and what he did definitely bothers Seawytch and she would rather drop it, rather quickly.  Because if people keep discussing LGBTers upholding a man guilty of serial sexual abuse against minor teens, homeless orphans on drugs, then maybe people in Utah might do the math on allowing gays to marry.  They might figure out that marriage has as one of its perks, elevation to top-tier status to adopt .....orphans...  And a group that clearly, obtusely and unambiguously embraces _the sexuality specifically _of a serial sex abuser of orphaned teen boys..might not be worthy of such a perk and such access to orphans.

Making it worse, Seawytch and others like her seek to shroud the abuse, to make it go away, to lie about it, to change key dates to make it look like McKinley wasn't a minor.  All these things are exactly the same things pedophiles do to cover up their crimes.  When reminded of those crimes, instead of recoiling in horror, every single gay person I've debated about it, without exception, has jumped to Milk's defense in lockstep fashion..

I'm sure Seawytch wants the topic of Harvey Milk to go away.  And gladly it will: the minute the 60+ gay groups who so recently had his image and sexualness iconized on the US Postage stamp publicly stand up and denounce him.  They could even pretend they hadn't read his biography and were mistaken in getting him immortalized in law in California and on the stamp in the US as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".  When they stand up and denounce Milk, I will stop talking about him.  If they don't, I won't.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Silohuette continues to filibabble: long, repetitious strings of already- rebutted arguments that mean nothing before the court.

Sil's opinion about homosexuality contributes nothing to the legal argumentation before the court.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silohuette continues to filibabble: long, repetitious strings of already- rebutted arguments that mean nothing before the court.
> 
> Sil's opinion about homosexuality contributes nothing to the legal argumentation before the court.



I hardly think that petitioning the Court to not ignore children in the discussion of gay marriage is "filibabble".

What Harvey Milk did to children is inexcusable.  Yet not only do LGBTers across three nations elevate him to their sexual-icon status, they actively exonerate his crimes in full knowledge of them; and to the direct intent of spirit of endangerment to children.  As if children are some sort of afterthought to their sexuality, only "things they can get at once they are married.."



> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Both parties involved are dead yes, but one lives on through the iconizing him by what Sil has explained here. You see just because someone is physically dead means nothing, because if someone creates a situation where people are expected to glorify that person into the future or to set aside as a holiday or day of remembrance in that he be recognized on, then for those who are required to honor that day of remembrance, said person is then lifted from his grave to be honored again and again.
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 24, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



 There is no "there" there. Digging deeper to find what? Nothing. 

Harvey Milk has nothing to do with marriage equality just as his relationship has nothing to do with his accomplishments. 

It's called *grasping *at straws for a reason.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Which side is grasping at straws again ?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 25, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Why don't you tell me. Who is bringing up a guy who has been dead over two decades in a pathetic attempt to paint gays as pedophiles? I think you know damn good and well who is grasping at straws. 

What we see in Sil's continued insistence in bringing up completely irrelevant topics like Milk is the last flopping, dying gasps of the anti-gay movement. It's over, you lost. We are marrying in 17 states and it's just going to grow. 

You have two choices; 1) Capitalize on it. Go into the gay wedding business. 2) Get over it, there's nothing you can do to stop it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 25, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



What's sad and telling is you perceive "sides."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




I remember reading a news report on the Utah appeal, sorry I don't have my fingers on it, which had a link to the actual document.

For all of the clamoring about "Harvey Milk v. Utah" being the case, I couldn't find Milk mentioned once.



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Not even when they tried the "but, but, but the children" defense? Sil should let them know of their missed opportunity.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> I remember reading a news report on the Utah appeal, sorry I don't have my fingers on it, which had a link to the actual document.
> 
> *For all of the clamoring about "Harvey Milk v. Utah" being the case, I couldn't find Milk mentioned once*.



That's because the entire world knows that this isn't going to stop at the 10th.  No matter what is decided there, the losing side will appeal.  Flat out.  The stakes are too high.  That's why Utah was...oh..nevermind.  You'll see..

Let's just put it this way, if his name comes up, don't be surprised.  Utah brought up adoption and kids as part of their concerns.  "There's your sign" [see my signature for details...]


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Doesn't have to be mentioned literally does it ? I mean it just has to end up on the judges minds when they consider a case therefore in opinion of, and in consideration of once know all the facts or the story that is surrounding a case or cases. Next the opinion and/or judgment in which they come to an ultimate conclusion on or a final decision on, is finally rendered in a case as based upon partly their opinions also, but mostly it is the facts in which are submitted in a case that matters the most. I mean isn't this how those things work, where as people on all sides put their opinions and views out there, and then it is reasoned out by the judges afterwards through a studying of such things and/or of all things considered ?


Do yall think Sil has been wrong in her studies upon her findings about this Milk character, and this upon how he has been iconized even though he was a bad person in his life ? I don't believe in broad brushes, but shouldn't someone be speaking maybe about how she is right about Milk, and that it is a mistake to lift such a character up as a role model, and especially when he was nothing of the such through her studied findings ?

Is she wrong in her findings ?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 25, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You think so eh ? Hmm, I am just looking at the back and forth, and then wondering who is the best at their defense upon their sides or the case. Not sure, but Sil has had some powerful points with that Milk story. I'd be running from that cat as far as I could get after seeing what he was all about, just like Joe Perterno should have run from Sandusky, and straight to the police.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




Sil's Harvey Milk posts are an attempt at distraction and an classic example of poison the well fallacy.  She's trying to paint homosexuals as pedophiles though association.

It's telling that Harvey Milk hasn't been brought up in one of the many cases over the last decade in the courts.  There is a reason, he's irrelevant to a discussion concerning committed consenting adults as they pertain to Civil Marriage.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Until they denounce this Milk character, and demand that his stamp be taken away, as well as the school children in California not having to celebrate his so called achievements in life, then she has a valid point about it all. That is where the connections are, and so your poisoning the well doesn't work to well with her really, because she is concerned that with this also comes that, and with that also comes this, now don't you see?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...









I see exactly what she's doing.

It's like saying that heterosexuals should be allowed to marry and that Poe's works should be stricken from all government owned libraries because he was a pedophile and practiced incest because of his relationship with his 13-year old cousin Virginia Clemm.

Ya, it sounds silly.  But so does denying consenting adult couples today because of the actions of an individual 2 generations ago.

It's smoke and mirrors beagle9 and usually you are smart enough to see that.  Do I condone Milk's actions in his private life? Absolutely not.  Do I think it has any relevance to denying equal treatment under the laws for homosexuals today? Absolutely not.

The fact is that the Marriage Equality movement is much better off today with those like Sil continuing to do what they do.  People see it and actually turn around and go in the other direction because the vitriol spouted turns people away.  So on second thought, keep it up Sil - rant away.  You are helping those you oppose. 


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> I see exactly what she's doing.
> 
> It's like saying that heterosexuals should be allowed to marry and that Poe's works should be stricken from all government owned libraries because he was a pedophile and practiced incest because of his relationship with his 13-year old cousin Virginia Clemm.
> >>>>



13 year olds are still allowed as a matter of isolated law in New Hampshire, to marry.  As are cousins in many states.  Should they be allowed as such in all states?  No, certainly not.  But I digress from the topic of these weird and questionable marriages..

Poe _was not revered for his sexuality at all_.  And _upon its discovery, brought a sullying to his achievements_.

_In contrast_, and illuminating the key difference of reverence in the cult of LGBT, _not only are they aware of Harvey Milk's sordid sexuality, it is the hinge of why they celebrate him_.  LGBTers celebrate Harvey Milk because he was the first openly gay man holding a public office.  See my signature for the faithful's definition of "openly gay"...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

>








OK, this will make some peoples head explode...



Texas Decision -->>  Judge Orlando Garcia's decision



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not at all bro.  In case what's going on with all these uber conservative states' activist judges and activist AGs has flown right over the top of your head, their actions are calculated to rile the populace into active rejection of this insult to democracy and erosion of christian values.

The subtleties of these events have escaped you.  They have not, however, escaped me...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Feb 26, 2014)

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down - ABC News

and the Supreme Court put Utah same-sex marriages *on hold*


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Well they are or were wrong also...




You know we may disagree on whether same-sex couples should be treated equally under the law, and that's OK.


Just wanted to say "Thank You".  Beagle, you are a class act - an honest poster and a pleasure to have on the boards.  You have my respect (that plus $3.50 will by a coffee at Starbucks.)


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> And yet the Church of Poe got him on a stamp.
> 
> 
> >>>>



What a man is venerated for is not a reflection of the man, but of the people who venerate him.

I repeat, Poe was and is famous for his poetry, not the sex he was having.  Harvey Milk in contrast is venerated for his sexuality.  Which of course was sodomizing teen homeless boys on drugs.  One of which at least was a minor for years while this was going on, and who Milk was officiating as a father/guardian to.

That says a lot about the people who celebrate that Milk was "the first openly gay politician"...  You remind them of his crimes and instead of wincing, their defense gets louder.  That's the difference between venerators of Poe vs venerators of Milk.


----------



## hazlnut (Feb 26, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious  progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.




*Right to benefits while married:*
Employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges

Per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating

Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)

Sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:

Veteran's disability

Supplemental Security Income

Disability payments for federal employees

Medicaid

Property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans

Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

Wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax

Joint and family-related rights:

Joint filing of bankruptcy permitted

Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records

Family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison

Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims

Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce

Domestic violence intervention

Access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods

Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs

Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.

Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens

Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime

Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse

Court notice of probate proceedings

Domestic violence protection orders

Existing homestead lease continuation of rights

Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption

Funeral and bereavement leave

Joint adoption and foster care

Joint tax filing

Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society

Legal status with stepchildren

Making spousal medical decisions

Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver

Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation

Right of survivorship of custodial trust

Right to change surname upon marriage

Right to enter into prenuptial agreement

Right to inheritance of property

Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:

Social Security pension

Veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing

survivor benefits for federal employees

Survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers

Additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease

$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty

Continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits

Renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

Continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances

Payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death

Making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts


*Responsibilities:*

Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
Veteran's medical and home care benefits
Housing assistance
Housing loans for veterans
Child's education loans
Educational loan repayment schedule
Agricultural price supports and loans
Eligibility for federal matching campaign funds​Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
Providing financial support for raising children born of the marriage


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Well they are or were wrong also...
> ...


Right back at cha my friend.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the Church of Poe got him on a stamp.
> ...



Milk wasn't "famous" for the sex he was having either. Milk would barely be a footnote in history if some homophobic prick hadn't shot him to death.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Milk wasn't "famous" for the sex he was having either. Milk would barely be a footnote in history if some homophobic prick hadn't shot him to death.



OK, so far to keep up with Seawytch, defending Harvey Milk...she says the following:

1. That somehow the minor 16 year old Jack McKinley who Milk sodomized while officiating as his father for several years until he became 18, was 'actually 17' in New York where Milk found him, despite the fact that it was documented he was only 16.  She claims the difference in age is fact because of some diary in some museum from Milk.  And she refuses to discuss how Milk took McKinley to a bank acting as his guardian in order to open an investment account.  If Milk didn't know he was sodomizing a minor that he was acting as a guardian to, why accompany the boy to the bank as a guardian?

2. Milk is today was and always will be famous for his sexuality and being open about it while holding a public office.  It is the core of why the church of LGBT venerates him.

3. Milk was not shot by a "homophobe".  He was shot by a fellow democrat politician who also shot and killed the mayor standing right next to him.  The mayor was not gay.  The killings were over political differences.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Milk wasn't "famous" for the sex he was having either. Milk would barely be a footnote in history if some homophobic prick hadn't shot him to death.
> ...




Sil, bearing false witness is a sin. God is watching you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 27, 2014)

Sil bears false witness regularly.

No one on this board defends Harvey Milk's sexual activities.

There is no Church of LGBT.

When Sil descends to _ad hom_, she admits she has failed.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it will be the children themselves over time, that will ultimately report as to whether it was a problem or not, so time will tell I guess as to whether people are wrong or they were right about these things. Don't you agree ?
> ...


The sexual orientation of parents is not a major factor in raising children. It's the Parent's dedication to being good parents that makes the difference.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 28, 2014)

Flopper said:


> The sexual orientation of parents is not a major factor in raising children. It's the Parent's dedication to being good parents that makes the difference.


And nothing spells dedication to children like requiring them to venerate a sexual predator of children as a matter of law in their school each May.  A predator named Harvey Milk who liked "young waifs with substance abuse problems" to sodomize one after the other.


----------



## Barb (Feb 28, 2014)

Five hours, five minutes, and counting down.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 28, 2014)

We all know that red wine is good......wait wait its bad for you etc etc. etc. 

Studies are all over the place
Studies of studies show that we get things wrong | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian


the book 
Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us
"An exposé of the multiple ways that society's so-called experts let us down, if not outright betray us. It's a chunk of spicy populist outrage, and it can be a hoot....It's news you can use." (New York Times Dwight Garner )

A revealing look at the fallibility of "experts," and tips on how to glean facts from the mass of published misinformation...Informative and engaging, if not groundbreaking news to more cynical readers." (Kirkus Reviews )


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 28, 2014)

> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The sexual orientation of parents is not a major factor in raising children. It's the Parent's dedication to being good parents that makes the difference.
> ...



I'm pretty sure this is why Utah made its appeal based on children.  I still think the worship of Harvey Milk is going to be an issue.  How could a sexual cult NOT be judged by its messiah's sexual values?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 28, 2014)

Uh oh!...  http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...been-affiliated-with-a-pedophile-group-2.html


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 28, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> We all know that red wine is good......wait wait its bad for you etc etc. etc.
> 
> Studies are all over the place..



That's why you pay attention to the ones that come from prestigious sources and cast an eye of scepticism on ones that come from the American Psychological Association [when you trace the funding money backwards to its source].

The Mayo Clinic and the CDC are known for their impartial examination of the facts.  They like and adhere to science.  So if they publish something, like they have, that indicates that homosexuality or other fetish orientations are learned, vs born that way, then you sit up and notice them more.

Anything coming out of the APA or its distant tendrils at this point is simply rainbow cult propaganda.  That organizations "prestige" committed suicide in the 1980s when it threw out the Leona Tyler principle.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The sexual orientation of parents is not a major factor in raising children. It's the Parent's dedication to being good parents that makes the difference.
> ...


That is simply amazing when one really thinks about it.. Has this nation lost it's entire mind finally ? It's so wonder now, that this nation is becoming the laughing stock of the world anymore. 

The only ones that are not laughing anymore is us, and it's because we have become to embarassed to laugh or smile about anything anymore.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 28, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Correct. 

And same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 1, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> And same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents.



That's like saying actors and actresses are "just as capable" of actually being the roles they play as real life people they're trying to depict.

Have you ever seen how in gay weddings, or everyday life, one is dressed or looks feminine and the other looks or dresses masculine?  That's because they are role playing a normal couple.  That type of untreated mental illness, that subconscious "knowing" without conscious realization is a dangerous person to have around children.  For if they are capable of that level of delusion about their own deep issues surrounding their gender, sex and what was likely done to them as a child, and the knowledge that most pedophiles come from stock that were themselve molested as children, you have an inundation of mental illness that if left unchecked will become a generational plague.  

When you subsitute abnormal for normal, all sorts of things can go wrong.  

One topic I bring up over and over related to this role-playing arrangement that all gay couples seem to exhibit subtlely or very overtly is this:  What's going on mentally with the one who is attracted to all the trappings of the opposite gender in their partner?  The "gay" man who is attracted to an effeminant man with a slender form, wiggling hips and a falsetto lisp and the lesbian woman attracted to her masculine partner with broad shoulders, macho swagger and falsetto lowered voice.  Aren't we really dealing with closet heterosexuality?  

And how will we ever know what we're dealing with when the gay-owned American Psychological Association has abandoned science in favor of cult dogma?  Will the APA ever investigate the starkly obvious phenomenon of closet heterosexuality in the homosexual population and what causes it?

No, not likely.  But that doesn't prevent lawyers and other scholars from debating it when considering placing these role players around children to raise "normally"...


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Correct.
> ...


Interesting analysis and/or observation of these sorts of things.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The sexual orientation of parents is not a major factor in raising children. It's the Parent's dedication to being good parents that makes the difference.
> ...



No one requires anyone to venerate Milk's sexual activities.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

"I'm pretty sure this is why Utah made its appeal based on children. I still think the worship of Harvey Milk is going to be an issue."

Absolutely incorrect.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


So your saying that the school requiring the children to honor his so called achievements on a certain day is not correct ? I mean isn't that what he is celebrated for (being a gay man who finally made into the office he made it into)? Isn't being *gay* attached to his being celebrated ?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 4, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



No, his private life is not "attached" to why Harvey Milk is honored. Yes, he was the first openly gay politician, but that is not his private life, that is who is was, a gay man. He is honored for the strides he made for LGBT equality and for his non violet activism. 

For the last time, the late Harvey Milk has _*absolutely nothing*_ to do with marriage equality. He is not a factor for anyone but apparently you and Sil. Have fun with it.


----------



## UJANGTEUING (Mar 4, 2014)

Very good news, interesting to refer to in


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

Suggesting that Milk is venerated because of his private life is similar to suggesting the same of DDE or JFK or WJC or WH or others.

Simply idiotic.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

What is interesting?  This thread?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

You hetero-fascists are simply negotiating the extent of your surrender. 

The end game is now obvious.

The only question is how much SCOTUS will allow the minority hetero-fascists to negotiate a 'protected zone' if any or simply slam the door on any exception regarding public access.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

Have you read DOMA/Windsor?  So you're certain they'll overturn their own findings within one year's time?

I'm not so sure about that.

The ACLU is suing the state of Utah:



> SALT LAKE CITY (AP) &#8212; The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the state of Utah over the issue of gay marriage, saying the official decision to stop granting benefits for newly married same-sex couples has created wrenching uncertainty.
> 
> The lawsuit filed Tuesday says the state has put hundreds of gay and lesbian couples in legal limbo and prevented them from getting key protections for themselves and their children.
> 
> "They've put a giant question mark over the lives of all these people that have married," said John Mejia, legal director for the ACLU in Utah. ACLU sues Utah for not recognizing gay marriages



Their suit amounts to suing the state of Utah for enforcing its own duly enacted law, having one judge via fascism overturning that law, and then blaming Utah for appealing it saying that their appeal has "harmed gays".

That's the same as suing a rape victim for squirming as you wrap the duct tape around her mouth while she's trying to scream for help.

Yeah, nothing to be afraid of on the far left.  If the republicans were doing this with their platforms, overriding state law with judicial fascism and then hog tying states as they resisted, everyone would be freaking out about it.

Today, the response to the gay's response is due in court on the Harvey Milk vs Utah case.  March 4, 2014.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

Sil, you are simply crying.

This is over.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Suggesting that Milk is venerated because of his private life is similar to suggesting the same of DDE or JFK or WJC or WH or others.
> 
> Simply idiotic.


 Not sure of all your abbreviations (i.e. who they are), so I don't know Jake, could it be that the ones you mentioned have been tarnished also badly over time, therefore lessoning the respect that they may have once enjoyed in their achievements also in life (or) could it be that it has lessoned the respect in which the nation had given them before all that was *not* known about them was therefore later on finally known about them? Wouldn't you agree ? Do you really think that the children should be celebrating Harvey Milk once we know who this man was in character of ? You know some people (kids and adults alike) want to know everything there is to know about their so called or supposed* hero *in which they do study and want to know everything about, so should we take the chance to lift up a person like this by name, and then to have children celebrate him by name ? Remember Jake, there are always degree's of wrong also, so always consider that in your accusations of others when you try and connect the dots in the way that you just did.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, you are simply crying.
> 
> This is over.



Was the Supreme Court case heard already?  When did that happen?  What were the convincing arguments for the gays in the end?  The Harvey Milk angle?  The unexplored genesis of homosexuality in the first place [innate vs learned]?  Or was it the sudden leap on HIV cases that boys are coming down with just in the years this gay marriage coup started forcing the cult's values on the governed via fascism?

Which in the end was the convincing argument Jake, of the case you say has already happened and been decided in the LGBT church's favor?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> I don't know Jake, the ones you mentioned have been tarnished also badly over time, therefore lessoning the respect that they may have once enjoyed in their achievements also (or) in the respect the nation had given them before all that was *not* known about them was therefore later on finally known about them. Wouldn't you agree ? Do you really think that the children should be celebrating Harvey Milk once we know who this man was in character of ?* You know some people (kids and adults alike) want to know everything there is to know about their so called or supposed hero in which they do study and want to know everything about, so should we take the chance to lift up a person like this by name, and then to have children celebrate him by name *?



I made this point awhile back where on the day children in California are required by gay law there to celebrate the gay pedophile Harvey Milk on May 22nd each year, what if one of those kids wants to do a really comprehensive book report on Milk as a presentation for extra credit in the 3rd grade?  What if their parent goes out and gets Milk's biography and the child starts pouring over it to get information for her report?  What then?  Tell the child "no no no...you shouldn't read his biography"?

What will an 8 year old think when s/he reads that "Harvey Milk always had a [sexual, in context] penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems"?  I can see the report now, "back when Mr. Milk had his 16 year old lover, he was a really nice man"  WOW 

You're right, past transgressions of other "heros" diminish their status.  With Milk, not only are his multiple sex felonies against minors and vulnerable teens not diminishing him, they are THE REASON HE IS CELEBRATED [and defended as such] in the first place!  And this is the cult we are fast-tracking to the complete destruction of our social moorings.  

No wonder Russia is getting its Black Sea port oiled and running again.  This old girl is buckled at the knees and about to go down for her last count..


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know Jake, the ones you mentioned have been tarnished also badly over time, therefore lessoning the respect that they may have once enjoyed in their achievements also (or) in the respect the nation had given them before all that was *not* known about them was therefore later on finally known about them. Wouldn't you agree ? Do you really think that the children should be celebrating Harvey Milk once we know who this man was in character of ?* You know some people (kids and adults alike) want to know everything there is to know about their so called or supposed hero in which they do study and want to know everything about, so should we take the chance to lift up a person like this by name, and then to have children celebrate him by name *?
> ...


Funny you mentioned Russia and current events, hmmm....
Could it be that if we continue down the paths that we have been going down, will the world begin to rebuke us also (or) will they lesson their respect for us even more so than it is now ? How about them in the world for whom are our enemies of course on some of the issues, but not so on all of the issues, now will they use these divisive things as an excuse to justify their actions when they are being taken in the world against another?  Have we become a laughing stock, and therefore weak in the eyes of the world, so otherwise who are we to demand anything from our weakened position now if that is where we are at in life ? Did Snowden hurt this nation more so than the nation is letting on ? Yes we have a great military still, but will it become a military for leveraging bad things in the world or will it project as it should be the many moral and righteous things in the world just as it should be doing when needed ? What is moral and righteous anymore, does anyone know ?

We may have entered into a very dangerous time in the world maybe, because if we are doing things that are immoral and unethical as a society or nation in which weakens us in the eyes of the world, and we are lifting those things up as if they are good, then there is no way that the world will follow us into the pit if they think that is what we are doing, and so where are we going ? Remember the old saying that goes "make sure your own doorstep is swept and clean, before you go around sweeping other peoples doorsteps in an attempt to make them clean".

Where are we at in the eyes of the Lord and in the world now, does anyone know anymore ? 

Interesting!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Suggesting that Milk is venerated because of his private life is similar to suggesting the same of DDE or JFK or WJC or WH or others.
> ...



Some are, some haven't.  But he fact remains that you guys are on the wrong side of marriage equality.

All you are doing now is negotiating the conditions of your defeat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sil, you are simply crying.
> ...



Be as crazy as you want, Sil, but the Church of Hetero-Fascism, with you as its spokesperson, is merely negotiating the terms of your defeat.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 5, 2014)

The Children Get Their Chance To Speak In Utah Gay Marriage Case

_"Family is really important in Utah and [Gov. Gary Herbert and the state of Utah] claim to want to protect families, but it hurts me and my brother to not be able to have married parents," one 12-year-old, identified by the initials R.H.P., told the authors of the brief. "My parents are good moms and are patient with me and are just regular people."[...]

All were bewildered and upset by the state's argument that growing up with gay parents somehow harmed them.

"I'm perfectly fine. My brother's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with us," said Riley Hackford-Peer, a 12-year-old whose moms were married in December.

The state&#8217;s argument is "kind of bully-like," he added.[...]

Rieley Frederick, a 14-year-old whose dads were married late last year, said one of her teachers recently told a story about a gay man who was not "loyal" to his partners. The teacher said that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

"It's not true, it's just not true. My dad's been loyal my whole life," Rieley said. She hopes that if Utah's ban is overturned, this kind of talk might stop, eventually. "I think after a while, people would realize that it's just part of life and they can't just talk about people that way," she said._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 5, 2014)

The American Sociology Association rebukes the nonsense offered by those like Sil and her fellow hetero-fascists.  "The nation&#8217;s largest professional association for sociologists says the states of Utah and Oklahoma are misrepresenting research on child well-being to make their cases against gay marriage."

"The American Sociology Association says positive outcomes for children are tied to stable two-parent relationships and greater parental resources &#8212; regardless of whether the two parents are a same-sex or different-sex couple."

"The association, in a brief filed with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of plaintiffs who challenged same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, says some studies cited by the states did not evaluate children of same-sex parents at all; in others, findings are misstated."

"These studies cannot serve as the basis for conclusions about same-sex parents and related child outcomes and do not undermine the social science consensus that children fare just as well with same-sex parents," the association said in its brief."

Same-sex marriage bans are under heavy fire | The Salt Lake Tribune


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The American Sociology Association rebukes the nonsense offered by those like Sil and her fellow hetero-fascists.  "The nation&#8217;s largest professional association for sociologists says the states of Utah and Oklahoma are misrepresenting research on child well-being to make their cases against gay marriage."
> 
> "The American Sociology Association says positive outcomes for children are tied to stable two-parent relationships and greater parental resources &#8212; regardless of whether the two parents are a same-sex or different-sex couple."...



A statement on the ASA and it's era of turmoil when temporal politics was vying at the same time to overcome hard science...at the same time a gay cabal was overtaking the APA...


> The golden era of the Association reached its zenith in the sixties: a decade of turmoil and crisis for the Association as well as for American society...
> 
> ...The turmoil was generated by the growth in numbers and activities and by trends toward democratization and equalization that had been operating for, at least, four decades within the Association, and for even longer within the larger society.
> 
> ...



A blurb from an ASA link on how social science research is done; with a link to the APA source, one of others, it uses to form it's conclusions:



> http://www.asanet.org/ethics/resources/EthicsBibliography.pdf
> ...AAUP. 2000. &#8220;Institutional Review Boards and Social Science Research.&#8221; [IRB]...
> 
> ...This 200 page volume was written specifically for the voting members of IRBs. It provides background information on the IRB system, the intended focus of IRB discussions, what members should before and during meetings, and summarizes basic guidelines for evaluating specific kinds of studies. It also contains a substantial section on references for additional information, including websites, books, and video recordings.
> ...



And the APA source itself, describing how...*ahem*...science is done...



> *Few topics elicit more emotion from psychology researchers than the mention of three simple letters: IRB*.
> 
> *Institutional review boards*--those federally mandated ethics committees that evaluate all federally funded and most institutionally sponsored research conducted with humans--*are often seen by researchers as synonymous with delays, unreasonable requests and seemingly capricious requirements*. Behavioral and social science researchers' major complaint is that many *IRBs subject them to regulations written and interpreted through a biomedical lens*, with little recognition of the major differences between medical research and what they do. *This results, in their view, in unnecessary delays and constraints* that impede research but do little to enhance the protection of research participants.
> 
> ...



Yes, actual science can be SO taxing in a research paper the public later relies upon to make important and profound decisions...like, I don't know, maybe an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court on whether or not the Harvey Milk cult should access orphans to adopt by the privelege of marriage?...decisions like that.  

Here's a history of how the APA and its sphere of influences [see "ASA"] came to regard politics in favor of science...you know, that pesky, tasking stuff that makes objective conclusions...:



> Dr. Nicholas Cummings was *President of the APA from 1979 to 1980*, and also served as a member of the organization&#8217;s Council of Representatives. He served for years as *Chief of Mental Health with the Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance Organization*, and is the author of the book &#8220;Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm.&#8221;...
> 
> ...*The APA &#8220;started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s*,&#8221; said Cummings.  &#8220;By the mid 1990s, *the Leona Tyler principle was absolutely forgotten*, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. *Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA*.&#8221;
> 
> ..Cummings says that the movement for &#8220;diversity&#8221; in the APA, which he endorsed, had resulted in a lack of diversity regarding heterosexuals. Former president of APA says organization (now) controlled by &#8216;gay rights&#8217; movement



The Leona Tyler Principle was the guideline for the APA for ages that any stance they take publicly must be based in science.  It was in place for many years.  Suddenly, it was 'disappeared' and searches for it at the APA website come up empty.  The board didn't even vote on disappearing it.  It just 'vanished'.

And now you know where the source of viability of the ASA amicus brief comes from...


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 5, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> The Children Get Their Chance To Speak In Utah Gay Marriage Case
> 
> _"Family is really important in Utah and [Gov. Gary Herbert and the state of Utah] claim to want to protect families, but it hurts me and my brother to not be able to have married parents," one 12-year-old, identified by the initials R.H.P., told the authors of the brief. "My parents are good moms and are patient with me and are just regular people."[...]
> 
> ...


Loyalty can be gained in many ways, especially from the young who have no choice but to listen and learn from that which is in charge of them, but that don't make that loyalty gained to therefore be founded in righteousness nor to be founded in morality. Nice try though, but it takes adults to know right from wrong in life, and it is the adults who have a responsibility to teach the children what is right in life and what is wrong in life.

The word says that if you teach the children to sin, then it would be better that you would tie a talent around thy neck, and to sink thyself to the bottom of the sea. It is that bad of a deal, and people will learn soon enough about the err of their ways in all of this mess for sure. You can tell I am a person who believes in the word as it is layed out for us from over the generations, and it is righteous and founded in truth, so I just feel sorry for those who are lost, but yet I remain hopeful for them always that they will find their way back somehow.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 5, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

As long as we remain true to the principles of due process and equal protection of the law, by acknowledging the comprehensive civil rights of gay Americans, America will remain a great, powerful, and free Nation. 

If we give into the fear, hate, and ignorance exhibited by those seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, however, thats the point at which we can start to fear for the well-being of America.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 5, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> As long as we remain true to the principles of due process and equal protection of the law, by acknowledging the comprehensive civil rights of gay Americans, America will remain a great, powerful, and free Nation.
> 
> If we give into the fear, hate, and ignorance exhibited by those seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, however, thats the point at which we can start to fear for the well-being of America.



You are absolutely correct, and you note the very real danger of the hetero-fascists gaining control of the 14th's interpretation.

Do not fear that such will happen.  For one thing, even if it did, the millenials and younger Xs would reverse it within a decade, if that.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 5, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Do you figure that the world should follow suit in what America is creating or influencing now here, and then next the attempt of it out in the world, and should they (other nations) remain soveriegn in their nation states without following in lock step with America's declining values or it's new strange influencing for which it has now ? Once we in this nation projected strength through values out in the world, but no more is that the case it seems. So what is left ? Let me see maybe *blackmail* through economics or money in order to get others to accept our ways all over the world now ? It's worked here, so why not try it on the world also eh ? Nah that won't work either, so a return to values is paramount here first, but that isn't going to happen anymore either is it ? Man-O-Man.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense.
> ...


Who is gaining or attempting to gain control here Jake ? You better wake up, because no one is changing or attempting to change things except for yall. Everyone or rather the majority was satisfied with the way America was in it's values and morals in which most had adopted as their own when come here through out the years, but all that is being turned on it's head as we speak, so don't even try to suggest that all of a sudden the Americans who have believed in this nation and it's core values over time, are now the strangers attempting to take it over or away from another. We all know who the thieves are, so who are you trying to fool with your fancy yet empty words ?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 6, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The Children Get Their Chance To Speak In Utah Gay Marriage Case
> ...



What are you blathering about? You feel sorry for the children of gays? Don't. Our kids are doing just fine. If you want to pity any kids, pity the kids of divorce.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> ...you note the very real danger of the hetero-fascists gaining control of the 14th's interpretation.
> 
> Do not fear that such will happen.  For one thing, even if it did, the millenials and younger Xs would reverse it within a decade, if that.



A fascist projecting his cult's fascism onto people who's free speech is being hogtied and "heresy" punished daily eh?  That's rich.

What if your brainwashed [for you admit that they are from your certainty of how they will vote..."born that way"?...really?] millenials and Xs suddenly learned that sex with the colon is like injecting HIV infected semen straight into their veins?  Or that Harvey Milk liked to prey on homeless teen boys who committed suicide one after the other?  

What if the media campaign turned on its heels and went against the cult?  Then the brainwashing would shift rather quickly in the opposite direction.  It's all a matter of Will, isn't it?  The cult of LGBT's _will_ vs the _will_ of the opposition to it.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Do you figure that the world should follow suit in what America is creating or influencing now here, and then next the attempt of it out in the world, and should they (other nations) remain soveriegn in their nation states without following in lock step with America's declining values or it's new strange influencing for which it has now ? Once we in this nation projected strength through values out in the world, but no more is that the case it seems. So what is left ? Let me see maybe *blackmail* through economics or money in order to get others to accept our ways all over the world now ? It's worked here, so why not try it on the world also eh ? Nah that won't work either, so a return to values is paramount here first, but that isn't going to happen anymore either is it ? Man-O-Man.



I have said before, and it is no exaggeration either, that if the US deposed of the evangelizing/deviant LGBT genie and put it back in its bottle with compassionate restriction, that our foreign relations with our enemies would INSTANTLY measurably improve. 

Not that we need that right now.  For God's sake, let's rile the world some more against us.  It's all worth it for that sudden sharp rise in teen boys getting HIV.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> [
> What are you blathering about? You feel sorry for the *children of gays*? Don't. Our kids are doing just fine. If you want to pity any kids, pity the kids of divorce.



You are aware of the laws of biology and reproduction, right?  And homes where orphans are adopted into need to be on the up and up for the sake of the orphaned child, yes?

So then your cult worshipping a child sex predator poses problems and does make people worry for and pity "children of gays".


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Who is gaining or attempting to gain control here Jake ? You better wake up, because no one is changing or attempting to change things except for yall. Everyone or rather the majority was satisfied with the way America was in it's values and morals in which most had adopted as their own when come here through out the years, but all that is being turned on it's head as we speak, so don't even try to suggest that all of a sudden the Americans who have believed in this nation and it's core values over time, are now the strangers attempting to take it over or away from another. *We all know who the thieves are, so who are you trying to fool with your fancy yet empty words *?



Because he's a lawyer advocating for the overthrow of state democracy on behalf of a little-understood partial list of deviant sexual behaviors/cult who worship as their messiah a sodomizer of teen boys on drugs?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Your both wrong, in theory and principle.  Tis what tis.

The only issue is the 14th.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The only cut that exists in your swiss-cheese mind, Sil.

Your sociology is perverse, as are you.


----------



## BillyZane (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You're forgetting about those people who were straight then had kids then all the sudden were reborn gay.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

The following is clear indication of the worminess infecting Sil's mind: " if the US deposed of the evangelizing/deviant LGBT genie and put it back in its bottle with compassionate restriction, that our foreign relations with our enemies would INSTANTLY measurably improve."


----------



## 1751_Texan (Mar 6, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> From your signature section:
> 
> The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to "free White persons" of "good moral character." It thus left out American Indians, free Blacks, Asians and illegal* Mexican *immigrants.



You do know there was so such place as "Mexico" in 1790...right?


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 6, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I know of a family who were completely destroyed, and just devastated in that for which you speak.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The only cut that exists in your swiss-cheese mind, Sil.
> 
> Your sociology is perverse, as are you.



When someone is stuck and scared in a debate, they resort to ad hominem.  Noted Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The only cut that exists in your swiss-cheese mind, Sil.
> ...



You have been a queen of the _ad hom_, dear. 

It's truth, not _ad hom_, to tell you that your interpretation of sociology and psychology is perverse and that the level of your argumentation indicates cognitive dysfunction.

I am not being mean, simply reporting the obvious.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The only cut that exists in your swiss-cheese mind, Sil.
> ...


I wonder if Jake even knows the meaning of "perverse", and when it should be applied or when it shouldn't be applied ? It's not a word to be used loosley, but if it is relevent in some subjects or situations, then it is to be applied as is needed. Jake likes to throw it around loosley it seems, and this instead of using it where it is needed or where it should be applied as is appropriate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

beagle9 is perverse in argumentation in twisting arguments without basis and solid fact.  The 9 gets mad when it is pointed out.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> 
> Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
> 
> Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?



Almost right. Marriage between a man and a woman is not only a "conservative concept" but an historical reality. If it works ... no need to fix it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
> ...



No one is fixing anything, kiddo.

Marriage equality in no way harms heterosexual marriage.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 is perverse in argumentation in twisting arguments without basis and solid fact.  The 9 gets mad when it is pointed out.


There you go again loosley appying a word that is not applicable or appropriate within your reply to me, but there it is, and here you are doing it again Jake.  LOL

At least you've calmed down a little though, because you ain't saying "I'm running and telling on yall" here lately... LOL


----------



## Flopper (Mar 6, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


You don't become homosexual or for that matter a heterosexual all of the sudden.  You are what you are.  When a closeted homosexual married to a heterosexual comes out, either divorce or an open marriage relationship is usually the result.  Both paths are very damaging to the children.   The best solution is for homosexuals to become openly gay as early in their life as possible and marry their own sex.  There are some very good mixed marriages but they're rare.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


What is *equality* according to you Jake, and should it be as a *blanket equality *or should people have to strive to better themselves, and then actually qualify themselves to reach certain goals, grades or levels in their life before being granted open and free equality among all the others as being the same when it comes to values, standards and morality ? I think certian criteria as a minimal should be met in life by people, and such standards should be honored in order to have a civilized society that is and remains united on these things. However what we see these days is every door and doorway that once meant something in America, is now being breeched or broken down, and then trampled upon by those who are not team players as one would think that they are. It reminds me of the Alamo now in this nation, and how that garison was over run by Santa Anta and his troops before reinforcements arrived. Texas stood as a beacon of hope for America, and for the American will at the time, and now America must stand again, just like it stood back then all the same.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 6, 2014)

Flopper said:


> *You don't become homosexual or for that matter a heterosexual all of the sudden. *



Your right, as it is a *choice* that is made either way in life, so it all comes down to choices, and not giving in to sin when choices are being made at any time in ones life.

Apart from God and his guidence in ones life, there is no telling what people are capable of, and it has been seen over time as to what they are capable of, especially when they make the choices that they make in life without God in their lives. Funny how when those choices are made, that it matters not who it hurts or anything else when the choices are bad ones in which they make, so it always best to thrive to make good choices in ones life, and not allow the devil to win the day as he has been doing more and more and more in this nation it seems.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 is perverse in argumentation in twisting arguments without basis and solid fact.  The 9 gets mad when it is pointed out.
> ...



The word 'perverse' certainly and accurately characterizes your vapid discussion.  That you can't argue more rationally with fact and evidence and law is something you need to work on.

I will report anyone who attacks family or makes allegations of pedophilia, as they are violations of the rules.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Your opinion is not fact or evidence, merely your feelings.  The point is that marriage equality will be determined by law and court decisions.  No one on the board has ever offered one compelling reason that marriage equality infringes on civil or religious liberty.

You have every right to them, certainly, but we all have feelings.


----------



## laziale (Mar 7, 2014)

I think the court is right


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



But it harms the definition of marriage thus creating a lie. It also creates a facade of legitimacy for the practice of homosexuality which is an abnormal practice or act. Until the 1970s (when "gay" activists infiltrated the ranks) homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.  So ... just  because a "gay" activist federal judge and a band of rainbow colored drama queens scream that "gay marriage" is Constitutional doesn't make it so.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Only in your mind. Gays have been married in Massachusetts for over a decade now. If that has caused your marriage to somehow be "less" than it was before, that's your fault and nobody else. 

No, it wasn't because "gay activists". Yes, public pressure was part of their decision, but they had actual science to back them up.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Of course we do all have feelings, and there is no seperating from them as you might think that there is.

Jake, you see feelings are a part of our human nature and/or our DNA make up so to speak, and to try and seperate feelings from the human being is a ridiculous thing, as that is what guides us, and they let us know what our conscience is saying to us, especially on very important things in life. They also help us in the very important times of decision making in our lives as well. Judges have created rules and laws to go by yes, and yet they have done this as human beings also, so feelings are or were involved in these things always. It is the nexus of our very being in this world, and they are always to be used when they are needed to make sound and proper judgements in life. A person who has no feelings, is a person who has no soul or has lost his or her soul or conscience in their life. This is a huge problem these days I think, and it is being taken advantage of now by people who are like you Jake, along with your actions as is known within this thread.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Was that *science* sort of like this Global warming science maybe ? I mean that has been a huge farce now has it not been ? Are the American people being duped in all of this so called science these days ?

There is such a thing as bad science and good science isn't there ?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



No, actually climate science hasn't been a "huge farce" if you talk to the scientific community. 97% of them are in consensus on climate change. 

Do you know any gay people? If so, do you actually believe they are suffering from a mental disorder? 

The Declassification of Homosexuality by the American Psychiatric Association

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. This decision occurred in the context of momentous cultural changes brought on by the social protest movements of the 1950s to the 1970s: beginning with the African-American civil rights movement, then evolving on to the women's and gay rights movements.

Just as influential in the APA's decision were the research studies on homosexuality of the 1940's and 1950's. Alfred Kinsey's and colleagues' study on male and female sexuality marked the beginning of a cultural shift away from the view of homosexuality as pathology and toward viewing it as a normal variant of human sexuality. Kinsey had criticized scientists' tendency to represent homosexuals and heterosexuals as "inherently different types of individuals." [...]

Clellan Ford and Frank Beach's Patterns of Sexual Behavior (1951), relying on data from the Human Relations Area Files, found homosexuality to be common across cultures and to exist in almost all nonhuman species. Their work supported the notion that homosexuality was both natural and widespread.

Psychologist Evelyn Hooker's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. The study found that experienced psychologists, unaware of whose test results they were interpreting, could not distinguish between the two groups. This study was a serious challenge to the view that homosexuality was always associated with psychopathology.[...]

Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons.​


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


How can we trust anyone these days I ask of you, as they are all seemingly on the hook or have climbed upon a bandwagon of weridness and in strangeness that is found in their weaknesses these days ? 

Then they pick up or join a cause and/or these strange things in which to belong to, and these are things that are totally going against the grain of the wood anymore, yet it is all being justified somehow, and in someway by them. It is *rebellion* is all that it is, and we see it big time these days as they have been failed in their lives by those for whom they had looked to for guidence. It's really sad what has taken place with them, but it also is going right along with the word and what it says about these things in which will be taking place in the world. Behold for we see the world transforming again right before our very eyes, and the word therefore is found to be thee foundational truth as it had been written down for all to see, and for all to read.  It has been spoken, and therefore we shall all know of these things that are written in truth that shall come, and so shall it be just as it were in the days of old.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Beagle, gays are not mentally ill, our children are fine and nothing is being "transformed". There have always been gays, there will always be gays...we just now live in a society that doesn't treat them like 2nd class citizens. This is not a bad thing.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I don't know what it is anymore to tell you the truth.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



That's because your version of "truth" isn't everybody's. There is no "truth" to the assertion that gays are a danger to children. There is no "truth" to the assertion that gays are mentally ill. The only "truth" is that gays are demanding equality and some people don't want to give it to them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Deflection.  Not worth the time.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Your discussion on feelings is merely *filibabble*, beagle9.

Judges do not allow feelings as a nexus to subvert fact and evidence and case law when making decisions.

Live in your subjective world, by all means, but don't inflict it on ours.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Your subjective feeling and understanding has no bearing on the issue.

Once upon a time slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, so forth and so on, were considered normal and acceptable behaviors.

Live in the past if you wish as the world moves forward.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your discussion on feelings is merely *filibabble*, beagle9.
> 
> Judges do not allow feelings as a nexus to subvert fact and evidence and case law when making decisions.
> 
> Live in your subjective world, by all means, but don't inflict it on ours.



Funny, in pitching the church of LGBT's case to win more ground on usurping mainstream values last year in Court, they brought up to much sympathy with one of the Justices, "how shaming it would be for kids of gay parents to not see them married".  Seems when you want emotions to play in the LGBT favor in court, suddenly they're fair game.  But if the other side plucked at the "save the kids instead from people who worship a child sex predator" heartstrings of the Justices, then yes, I'm sure you'd argue that that should be not a consideration...

The ...flexibility...of the church of LGBT is well known and documented.  It seems perfectly fine with the alarming rise in HIV in boys ages 13-24 and "doesn't want to talk about it, nor have anyone else talk about it."  But if child deaths serve their purpose [gay teen suicides] then you can't shut them up talking about it.  One wonders about the fickle affection LGBTs have with youth after all.  I mean, if you can worship a guy who officiated as dad to homeless teen boys, while simultaneously sodomizing them, who, one by one [I think 3 for sure] killed themselves later...your compassion for children really does have to come into quesiton.  Well, I suppose you can always fake it when the Justices are sitting right in front of you.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your discussion on feelings is merely *filibabble*, beagle9.
> ...


Good job on the outting of hypocryts not wanting feelings involved when it counters them, yet that is exactly what is played when bringing so called witness testimony into a court room for exactly that purpose. What is it that is always said about these singing shows, where as an artist has to be more emotionally connected to their performances, as so to get the judges to be more interested ? I think a court room is slam full of emotions and feelings, and this is in hopes of the rulings in which people are always hopeful for and/or are trying to get, whether it is to change things or either keep things intact just the way that they are, be it then successful or maybe not. You either have impact testimony given (or) final results testimony given (or) assumption testimony and/or fact based testimony given (or) victimization testimony given (or) various other kinds of testimony that is given, but most are based on emotional trama or emotions that have come as a result of something that has happened or has not happened yet to people in which they want to avoid or gain control over. These are the things in which then brings on a case that assembles so many people together in trying to figure something out on certain issues or things that are the center of the case when it is being reviewed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2014)

Sil and b9 continue *filibabbling *about feelings, nexuses, the church of something or other, hatred for professionals doing their discipline, and so forth and so on.  I am sure the find it tough to be left behind and *feel *badly about it.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil and b9 continue *filibabbling *about feelings, nexuses, the church of something or other, hatred for professionals doing their discipline, and so forth and so on.  I am sure the find it tough to be left behind and *feel *badly about it.



If I ad hominemed you a fraction of how you divert the topic while ad homineming other people, I'd have been banned here long ago.  Put up or shut up asshole.  Debate what was said about gays milking gay teen suicides and ignoring spiking rates of HIV in 13-24 year olds or get reported to the moderator.  You directly accuse me of hating gays.  But if I direcly accused you of molesting children, you'd flip the fuck out.  Hypocrisy is OVER.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Well, here is where the problem comes in Jake, and this is for the many who are of faith, and do believe in the word for whom see something like being gay as being a sin, and therefore they are teaching their children that it is sin, and that they are not to engage in it.  So in this you are going to always have new generations of young people, that are going to look at these things as being wrong, and this no matter what a federal court says to the contrary if these children believe in their parents. 

The only hope of the feds is that when the children come to public school, then they will take over as the parents (Melissa Harris), and then re-program the minds of the children early on, therefore countering everything as much as possible in which the so called out of touch and ignorant parents would have taught them before coming there. This undoubtedly is what is going on in this nation now, because children are at the core of change in this nation, but is it the right change in which they are being programed to represent now or is it right to say that the parents were wrong for what they taught to their children when teaching them ? It's all very highly charged and debatable as to what is going on in this nation now, and the feds and the local governments under directive of the feds, are involved up to their necks in it all. Not sure where the push is going, and how far these changes might go, but hang on for the ride I guess, because it is going to be an interesting one for sure.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *You don't become homosexual or for that matter a heterosexual all of the sudden. *
> ...


There is a choice but not in the way you mean.  A person who is born with an attraction to those of the same sex does have a choice to make.  They can closet their feelings and spend their life hiding who they are or they can admit the truth to themselves and the world.

Closeted homosexual feeling often leads to serious physiological problems that are destructed both to the individual and others.  These problems manifest themselves in loss of self esteem, self hatred, gay bashing, leading a double life, and anti-social behavior often directed at spouses or the children.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I don't believe in treating the mentally ill like "second class citizens" but that doesn't mean that I don't want them to get the treatment they so desperately need.  I don't hate schizophrenics but I probably wouldn't allow one to babysit my kids.  I don't hate homosexuals but I probably wouldn't allow one to babysit my son. I don't hate AIDS patients but I probably wouldn't allow one to take my daughter to a nightclub for drinks.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 7, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder by mainstream psychologist and psychiatrists because it does not create disorganization of personality or distress in the person affected with the symptoms.  Any distress felt by the person is created by society thus it is not treatable.   It was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980.  There is no accepted "cure" or treatment for homosexuality.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Flopper said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I see it is a choice they make, or something that is manipulated/brainwashed into them. It all is spawned from a weakness in their lives I think, whether it be in one form or another in which they were found as weak cubs seperated from reality, the herd, the family, and from what is normal or was supposed to be normal in their lives. Now you see it differently, so we will agree to disagree, and that is that. Just take the wild for example, and what goes on in the wild, where as when the cub is found strayed or weakened, then what happens to that cub ? Sil says Harvey Milk showed up.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




No, you don't see. The only choice is in acting upon our *natural* inclinations. You do not chose the attractions. 

Could you _chose_ to be attracted to someone of the same gender?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 believes that his subjective feelings are evidence of some sort for the rest of us that we should do what he wants.  He has no factual evidence what so ever.  Neither does Sil.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 believes that his subjective feelings are evidence of some sort for the rest of us that we should do what he wants.  He has no factual evidence what so ever.  Neither does Sil.


No one expects you to do anything but listen maybe or to think outside the box if you are here and joining in to the conversation, and then you can make your own judgements in life afterwards. Now we will also listen to you out of respect, but hey if you choose to ignore things that make you go hmmmm, then that is your own condition or closed mindedness in your life, but it isn't others in which you try and speak for also here, so at least know that much Jake. I mean who is it that you were speaking to when you just wrote what you just wrote, and did they answer or coddle you yet ? I bet you think you are speaking to a huge crowd that agree's mostly with you, now don't you Jake ? LOL


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 believes that his subjective feelings are evidence of some sort for the rest of us that we should do what he wants.  He has no factual evidence what so ever.  Neither does Sil.
> ...



Jake doesn't think or listen.  He is simple advocating blindly for LGBT.  You could literally show him a picture of Harvey Milk up to his skin purse in some underaged teen boy he had bent over a table and he would find a way to call you a hater for saying there is something wrong with that.  They're on a rampage.  There are none of the five senses involved.  This is a cult.  Cults don't listen to reason.  They are either stopped or they burn everything in their path.  That's what's going on today and we are all watching it happen.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Yes I could choose anything of course, but I wouldn't choose certain things in life because well I don't follow seemingly weird and/or strange things in life.  I was raised and/or was taught that such things were weird or strange in this life, and that it is sinfulness, but (yes) I could choose to do anything I want too, and actually I do engage in anything within reason that I want too, but I have to follow my heart, and my learned and taught ways in my life, and for me it appears that I have been taught actually correctly as according to me and my thinking in which was given me by my parents, but for others I guess they have the right to make their choices as they have been doing also in their life just as well, but that doesn't make them right over me and my thinking about what is right and what is wrong in life for me, and/or for my family in according to our beliefs in life. Now like I said to Jake, what about people teaching their children that these things are wrong and sinful just as I was taught, and that they are not to be engaged in ? How do you deal with that, and at the same time allow us our freedoms and space in which we are entitled to just as well in this nation ? It is a problem..


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I think Jake argues for anything, as he enjoy's trying to make himself think that he is the smartest person in the room..LOL.... I wonder what he does think really, because like so many accuse of here, he might be just a troll, and that is what trolls do is (argue), yet they have no stances because they straddle the fence to much.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

The government needs to get out of Americans social lives, and especially Americans childrens lives.

The only thing the government should be doing is providing for our defence and working to manage the budget over funds and/or funding for roads and other public services as is needed, but they need to get the hec out of the Americans social lives, and quit dabbling in social experimentation at everyones expense. It has absoluetly no business there. Period!

People pull your children closer than you ever have before to yourselves, because they (the government that is infiltrated by various groups) are attempting to take them away from you mentally, and brainwash them unto their demise. AMERICA BEWARE!


----------



## Flopper (Mar 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You speak of reason yet you use guilt by association to condemn the LGBT movements.  This is a fundamental error in logic that has been used to support racial, sexual, and religious  discrimination since the beginning of time.  Your argument would only be valid it you could show that Harvey Milk has actually been found guilty of the sexual abuse in your accusation and the vast majority of the LGBT condone this abuse. 

It's insufficient to simply site accusations of sexual abuse or jump to the conclusion that the most LGBTs admire Harvey Milk for anything other than being one the first openly gay politicians and passing gay right legislation.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 7, 2014)

Flopper said:


> *You speak of reason yet you use guilt by association to condemn the LGBT movements*.  This is a fundamental error in logic that has been used to support racial, sexual, and religious  discrimination since the beginning of time.  Your argument would only be valid it you could show that Harvey Milk has actually been found guilty of the sexual abuse in your accusation and the vast majority of the LGBT condone this abuse.
> 
> It's insufficient to simply site accusations of sexual abuse or jump to the conclusion that the most LGBTs admire Harvey Milk for anything other than being one the first openly gay politicians and passing gay right legislation.



You or anyone else can read Harvey Milk's biography.  In fact, a child doing a book report on him can read it too.  Maybe present it in the mandatory celebration day of him in California schools May 22nd.

The book is "The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" by his friend and accredited gay journalist Randy Shilts.

Over 60+ groups in the US, Mexico and Canada who avidly revere all that Milk stood for [presumably one or two of them read his biography?] petitioned the US postal service to commission this stamp in reverence to him:






When you don't want to be guilty by association with a teen sex predator, you shouldn't associate with him.  Pretty simple stuff.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> You or anyone else can read Harvey Milk's biography.



And its still just as legally and Constitutionally irrelevant as the last 100 times you mentioned this nonsense, and still not justification to deny gay Americans their civil liberties.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2014)

Sil and beagle9 continue to filibabble, substituting their feelings for evidence.  Unsophisticated debaters try to engage as if they are intellectuals.  Clearly they are not.

Time to move on.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 7, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *You speak of reason yet you use guilt by association to condemn the LGBT movements*.  This is a fundamental error in logic that has been used to support racial, sexual, and religious  discrimination since the beginning of time.  Your argument would only be valid it you could show that Harvey Milk has actually been found guilty of the sexual abuse in your accusation and the vast majority of the LGBT condone this abuse.
> ...


LGBT groups that praise Harvey Milk do so for for his accomplishments as being one of first elect openly gay politicians not because of any accusation of sexual abuse that he might have committed.  This should not be that hard to understand.  We praise Edison because of his inventions not because he electrocuted dozens of large animals at the Luna Park Zoo on Coney Island just to show the dangers of electricity. We praise Steve Jobs because of his his innovations not because he was  an asshole who bullied employees and nearly destroyed his own company because of his  immaturity. The list goes on and on, Freud who liberally prescribed cocaine to patients, Motzart who wrote pornography verse, Albert Einsteins who sleep around and was infatuated with his cousin, and Ben Franklin who was a pimp daddy with women of all ages.  These people and thousands of other like Harvey Milk are celebrated for their accomplishment, not because of their supposed failings.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil and beagle9 continue to filibabble, substituting their feelings for evidence.  Unsophisticated debaters try to engage as if they are intellectuals.  Clearly they are not.
> 
> Time to move on.


We had you fighting purty darn hard in order to try and overcome these two unsophistigated debators in which you accuse of as such here Jake, so hey you know what ? I am dog gone proud to have engaged in what must have been a shock to you, because dealing with the likes of you, and in such a simple way, really says it all Jake.  In order to hold down someone that is sooooooo intelectual as according to yourself there Jake, well it makes me think man I must be dreaming that I could actually compete on your level as in accordance with you, and yet here you are all by yourself in your celebration, just like you were on all your birthdays I bet. LOL 

Man you ought to be ashamed that you have been toyed with so badly by two unsophistigated debators as we are in your egotistical mind Jake (or) are you just plain wrong yet again in your life about these things, and here it is again that you just don't know it even though you should know it by now ? LOL wow poor ole Jake the closet democrat. Too funny!


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Catch up man, as we have been over these same things already.. I tire of trying to rewrite what somebody has missed or tries to re-ignite in these ways.. wow-O- wow.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 7, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Don't bother.  You can't defend your points based on guilt by association and unsupported accusations.  Those arguments fail.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 7, 2014)

Flopper said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Another tactic used maybe ? I'll be here for a while, but bring something else into the frey, because we have already adressed these points time and time again, and we have won some and we have tied on some time and time again. Now go back and read in order to keep us from adressing these points yet again and again and again please.


----------



## kucing (Mar 8, 2014)

Thanks information is good


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



I didn't ask if you could choose to fuck someone of the same sex, I asked if you could choose to be *attracted *to them in a sexual and emotional way. Could you? 

Gay kids have been taught that being gay is sinful too. Guess what? Being told that *WHO YOU ARE* is sinful doesn't stop gays from being gay, never has.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

Hey Beagle, do you know what happens when you continually tell gay kids that they are "sinful" and going to hell?

As many as 40 Percent Of Homeless Youth Are LGBT, Family Rejection Is Leading Cause

Ran away because of family rejection of sexual orientation or gender identity: 46%
Forced out by parents because of sexual orientation or gender identity: 43%

This too: (Journal of Pediatrics)

_Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were significantly more likely to attempt suicide in the previous 12 months, compared with heterosexuals (21.5% vs 4.2%). Among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, the risk of attempting suicide was 20% greater in unsupportive environments compared to supportive environments. A more supportive social environment was significantly associated with fewer suicide attempts, controlling for sociodemographic variables and multiple risk factors for suicide attempts, including depressive symptoms, binge drinking, peer victimization, and physical abuse by an adult _


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Hey Beagle, do you know what happens when you continually tell gay kids that they are "sinful" and going to hell?
> 
> As many as 40 Percent Of Homeless Youth Are LGBT, Family Rejection Is Leading Cause
> 
> ...




Now your going to cast blame on the straight community for what happens to kids who grow up in a now highly confusing situation that is cast upon them as soon as they walk or take a step outside of their home or turn on the TV and computer ? Classic.  It just shows how straight families and their children are under assault these days big time, and it's coming in from so many different directions that they can barely hold the fort anymore. Without government help these things would have never gotten as bad as they are these days.


Ok, so your talking about kids who are living in straight families, but somehow think that they are gay or have been told that they are gay by outside forces ? Then the familiy tries to bring them back from what has happened to them, but it is to late ? Oh well I guess that's what happens when you don't keep your children closer to you, and they slip through the cracks. Oh and it isn't about the pressures I don't guess either, you know the ones that have been set up just out side the door of the home, where as soon as they step out the door BAM, it is in their face challenging them to jump to the other side. The tressapassers who are everywhere these days, they are probably full of the same dumb questions awaiting these kids (when they walk outside their door), just like the ones you ask me yesterday. Then when they go to school it only gets worse for them, as the government has infiltrated that situation now worse than ever also. man-O-man.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Beagle, do you know what happens when you continually tell gay kids that they are "sinful" and going to hell?
> ...



No, the facts of the study is placing blame where it belongs, on* intolerant assholes*. 43% of gay teens are _forced _out by their parents...parents that are supposed to love and protect them until they can take care of themselves. 

And what happens to gay teen suicide when kids are raised in loving and supportive environments? Fucking A...it goes down. Who would have ever imagined that? 

Fuck you and your "gays are bad for kids".


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Seawytch, why so hostile in a debate ? If you can't handle it like you expect us to, then go somewhere else and be happy being there. You have the higher ground these days, but you still aren't happy ? What will it take then, maybe you finally controlling all straight families who have a certain belief system or thinking maybe ?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> No, the facts of the study is placing blame where it belongs, on* intolerant assholes*. 43% of gay teens are _forced _out by their parents...parents that are supposed to love and protect them until they can take care of themselves.




You know where I stand, but the above needs a little clarification from your previous post.

It's not "43% of gays teens" it was 43% of homeless teens there were gay.  I'm 100% in agreement that parents that force a gay teen out of the home are intolerant assholes but your misstatements paints a picture which I believe you weren't going for in that 43% of straight parent will kick out a gay teen.  I don't think that is true.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > No, the facts of the study is placing blame where it belongs, on* intolerant assholes*. 43% of gay teens are _forced _out by their parents...parents that are supposed to love and protect them until they can take care of themselves.
> ...


I don't think that it is either, but there it is in an attempt to scew the facts maybe, or to miss-interpret the stats as to where they are coming from, and all in order to make a point that favors her side, even if the point might have been bogus in which she was trying to make in that way.

So yes, if you are going to debate something, then I think it best to stay away from tactics that may be easily seen through. So I agree with what you may have seen in what she was attempting to do.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch, why so hostile in a debate ? If you can't handle it like you expect us to, then go somewhere else and be happy being there. You have the higher ground these days, but you still aren't happy ? What will it take then, maybe you finally controlling all straight families who have a certain belief system or thinking maybe ?




Kind of a hypocritical post there Beagle about being hostile in the debate.  I've been in many threads and Seawytch has demonstrated an ability to be respectful to other posters, even posters that disagree with her as long as the mutual bounds of respect are maintained.

We have a poster in this very thread who continually refers to the "cult of LGBT", has referred to the "evangelizing/deviant LGBT genie", and "deviant sexual behaviors/cult who worship as their messiah a sodomizer of teen boys on drugs".  BTW - those are direct quotes looking back at just the last single page of this thread (I use a 40 post count).

You have members of the LGBT community being labeled or associated continually with:
* Perverts

* Deviants

* Child molesters

* Animal fuckers​

In this country homosexuals have been jailed for being homosexual, thrown involuntarily into mental institutions, had involuntary electroshock "therapy" as "treatment".  In most states business can deny you service or fire you for no other reason than they think you are gay.  In the UK they castrated one of the greatest code-breaking minds that helped us win WWII (and he wasn't the only one).

So ya don't think that someone might get a little hostile because SIL is not alone in her denigration.  Take off you glasses that only allow you to see outright hostility only against the side you agree with.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch, why so hostile in a debate ? If you can't handle it like you expect us to, then go somewhere else and be happy being there. You have the higher ground these days, but you still aren't happy ? What will it take then, maybe you finally controlling all straight families who have a certain belief system or thinking maybe ?
> ...


Sil is only trying to see (by my watching this thread), if they will diss-associate themselves with the one that they (sil's claim) have lifted up as according to her findings, but they won't do it by what she is finding here, and instead they defend by challenging her findings in every way possible, otherwise instead of saying to themselves hmmmm didn't know that. 

Guilt by association may just be a legitimate find by sil here while in their defense mode, so is she wrong when they defend instead of saying to her (Yep) now that is a problem sil.  Maybe they should check in on that one, because they don't want to be associated with that type of person be it in no way, shape, or form, wouldn't you agree ? I mean she (sil) made the claim through her findings, now if the claim is true or there is any truth to it, then wouldn't you think that they would want to help her understand that they don't believe in being associated with such a person as this Harvey Milk character at all ? They actually tried to defend Harvey Milk by saying the boy was one year older than he was, otherwise as a technicality to suggest that this should clear Milk from his problems in which she has brought forth and laid upon the table.

I have said before that I don't believe in blanket assumptions on people, but she has put it out there, and they have responded. Now so far I haven't seen a total rebuking of this  Harvey Milk person as of yet, and he is a bad character that it would seem no one would want to associate themselves with, especially after all that is learned about him thus far.

Maybe it's like it is with any group that is striving to survive against the masses for whom think or see things differently, and so they are strained when it comes to the numbers and support in those numbers in which they are dealing with and so desperately need to remain intact.  So they choose to hang on to every number that they can, even if within those numbers they have some real problems lying there within them or is being found in the characters for which are in and among those numbers. What do you think of that one maybe?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

> Another tactic used maybe ? I'll be here for a while, but bring something else into the frey, because we have already adressed these points time and time again, and we have won some and we have tied on some time and time again. Now go back and read in order to keep us from adressing these points yet again and again and again please.



You and others who seek to deny gay Americans their civil liberties haven&#8217;t &#8216;won&#8217; anything, your series of defeats in Federal court is proof of that. 

You have failed to demonstrate a rational basis to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law. 

You have failed to provide objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, as required by the 14th Amendment. 

And you have failed to demonstrate a proper legislative end in seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection right to access marriage law; you only seek to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else, in violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > No, the facts of the study is placing blame where it belongs, on* intolerant assholes*. 43% of gay teens are _forced _out by their parents...parents that are supposed to love and protect them until they can take care of themselves.
> ...



No, that wasn't a picture I ever intended to paint. 43% of the gay homeless teens were told to be there by their parents and another 46% left because their parents made it intolerable to be there...by, you know, telling them they are sick, perverted and will burn in hell. That's the kind of thing a kid wants to hear from their parents isn't it?


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 8, 2014)

what it boils down to is that this kind of decision should be decided by the people, not a couple of senile swing voters on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> what it boils down to is that this kind of decision should be decided by the people, not a couple of senile swing voters on the Supreme Court.



Equal rights isn't a popularity contest.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Oh, I've taken plenty of "higher ground", but I'm tired of you and Sil suggesting that gays can't be good parents or that our existence is a danger to children. I'm _FUCKING _tired of it so I'll say it again, fuck ya'll and your bullshit. 

If those statistics I had provided earlier were attributed to the children of _gay parents_, would you be so blase about it?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> what it boils down to is that this kind of decision should be decided by the people, not a couple of senile swing voters on the Supreme Court.



Oh really? "The people" should decide civil rights? Should they have decided in the 60s when Loving v Virginia was ruled on?


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > what it boils down to is that this kind of decision should be decided by the people, not a couple of senile swing voters on the Supreme Court.
> ...



decisions of WE the people aren't popularity contests either. If that is your attitude towards Democracy/Republicanism, Then maybe you should move to some dictatorship somewhere.  Apparently you would rather have  a panel of judges such as a beauty contest would have.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



If we had waited for interracial marriage to be "popular"...







Oops, and how about this?






So let's get that National referendum eh? The blue states (where all the people live) will decide.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



I'd much rather a real judge making the call then a bunch of homophobes.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



I am an advocate for a national initiative/referendum option....I have no problem with that...that is the way it should be done.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> No, that wasn't a picture I ever intended to paint. 43% of the gay homeless teens were told to be there by their parents and another 46% left because their parents made it intolerable to be there...by, you know, telling them they are sick, perverted and will burn in hell. That's the kind of thing a kid wants to hear from their parents isn't it?



Or maybe seeing your kid heading towards statistically dying of AIDS breaks your heart and you can't bear to see it happening in front of your face every minute?  That and if he was molested, you are legally banned [in California and New Jersey] from getting him therapy to throw off his compulsive and frightening/deadly new "sexual orientation"?  Nobody should turn their back on their child, but encouraging him to surely commit AIDS suicide is not an option for most parents either.  What do you suggest they do?  Tell him to embrace what was done to him as a child and "love it"....to death...?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Oh, I've taken plenty of "higher ground", but I'm tired of you and Sil suggesting that gays can't be good parents or that our existence is a danger to children. I'm _FUCKING _tired of it so I'll say it again, fuck ya'll and your bullshit.
> 
> If those statistics I had provided earlier were attributed to the children of _gay parents_, would you be so blase about it?



Sure..defending Harvey Milk, demeaning Milk's teen victims saying "who gives a shit" about them, defending splitting up your twin babies to farm one of them [a boy as I recall] out to two gay men friends of yours....yes...you're always taking the higher ground...

You sound like a lovely parent.

Oh hey, you're from San Francisco and active in the LGBT movement there, did you hear about this guy heading up that movement who was busted for pictures of toddlers being sodomized on his computer?  And his emails expressing his eager praise for the folks putting that stuff together for his "entertainment"?  Quiet the read.  Brush up on your creative defending skills Seawytch.  You're going to need them for this one: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...rights-advocate-sentenced-for-child-porn.html  San Franfreakshow dedicated a special week to honor the guy's LGBT legacy.  With him and Harvey Milk heading up the moral code of ethics for LGBT, your pleas for marriage [and access to adoptable orphans via marriage] in Utah should be a slam dunk.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> what it boils down to is that this kind of decision should be decided by the people, not a couple of senile swing voters on the Supreme Court.



Incorrect. 

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men  as men are incapable of ruling justly; Proposition 8 and Amendment 3 are proof of that.     

Ones civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, as the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights. 

What it boils down to is laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties are predicated solely on hatred toward gay Americans, not a rational desire to pursue a proper legislative end, where such laws are being invalidated accordingly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Fortunately the Framers had a problem with that, hence a Republic as opposed to a democracy. 

And in a Constitutional Republic, a national initiative/referendum would still be subject to a court challenge, and its results rendered invalid if demonstrated repugnant to the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I've taken plenty of "higher ground", but I'm tired of you and Sil suggesting that gays can't be good parents or that our existence is a danger to children. I'm _FUCKING _tired of it so I'll say it again, fuck ya'll and your bullshit.
> ...



Sil, heterosexuals do the same thing.  And say nothing about family or personal parenting.  Your only warning.

So grow up and step off.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

> you hear about this guy heading up that movement who was busted for pictures of toddlers being sodomized on his computer?



Hey did you hear about *Anti-Gay Christian Activist   *anti-gay activist sentenced for child porn - Bing

Arrested for Child Pornography A New Hampshire lawyer who works with a "virulently anti-gay" Christian organization has been *convicted *of multiple federal child pornography charges for transporting her *young daughter from the U.S. to Canada, and filming her having sex with various men, numerous times*.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> what it boils down to is that this kind of decision should be decided by the people, not a couple of senile swing voters on the Supreme Court.




The people of Alabama decided to amend their constitution to deny interracial marriage also.  It was one of the states overturned in the Loving decision.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


No the young adult (hopefully that is who you are refering to and no younger) wants to stay there and force everyone to suffer and agree because of his or her wanting to newly try something out in life. The parents of course don't or shouldn't want them to believe that what they do is ok, especially under the same roof with them if they believe that it is a sinful thing to engage in something like that. Now if the young adult wants to move on, and is legal to move on then so be it, but the parents should be strong enough to allow them to move on, and not agree to something that they do not agree with in life, and especially within their own homes. It's sad that they lose their young adults so easily to these things these days, but with the outside pressures so high now, it doesn't surprise me a bit. Oh and as many as there are now for whom are falling these days, you can't tell me that they were all just born that a way, because that argument is becoming more and more rediculous as the days go by.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I've taken plenty of "higher ground", but I'm tired of you and Sil suggesting that gays can't be good parents or that our existence is a danger to children. I'm _FUCKING _tired of it so I'll say it again, fuck ya'll and your bullshit.
> ...




Shit for brains, I already told you I didn't split up any twins,


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




Oh, and the surrogate babies were not my children, ignoramus.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > what it boils down to is that this kind of decision should be decided by the people, not a couple of senile swing voters on the Supreme Court.
> ...


*Equal rights *has become a progressive thing that seems to have no ending to it in sight, especially in this new blanketing form. I mean everyone is jumping on the band wagon with their little new creations in which they want covered under the same rights altogether now, but soon the band wagon will overload, and the people will rebel against alot of the devilish crap that is being added to it these days. We are seeing a lot of bull crap now added or attempted to be added, in which was never intended to be added to these rights, so let the band wagon keep on loading because soon it will break. Then what ?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, heterosexuals do the same thing.  And say nothing about family or personal parenting.  Your only warning.
> 
> So grow up and step off.



Your only warning:

Heterosexuals don't know someone is a child predator and elevate him as their sexuality icon in spite of that knowledge.  KEY difference...


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I clearly remember you said you sent one of the twins off and one remained with you.  Are you sure none of those babies you shipped out were from your DNA?

You never did say anything about that child porn LGBT advocate guy.  What's your opinion.  I'm curious.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



And its this sort of ignorance that poses the greatest threat to our civil liberties. 

Same-sex couples have always had the right to access marriage law, nothing new is being created or demanded. The issue involves the states denying same-sex couples the rights theyve always possessed, in violation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...


What's a real judge to you, maybe a man that wears womens clothing under his robe or a woman that wears men's clothing under her robe ?

Hollywood & the feds have this nation so screwed up anymore, that it isn't even funny anymore.

People don't know who or what they are anymore, where as they have to go and ask someone or maybe get on the Dr. Phil show before all is said and done.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...


So why don't you allow the states to vote then, and to have the last word on it in each state, I mean if it is such a straight foward no contest normal situation ? I know why, it's because you all know you are wrong on this, but you are going to use the feds to your advantage because of their idiocy and the infiltration that has taken place now, and you will use their judicial bullying against the will of the people in order to push your agenda on the nation without it's blessings. Classic !

These things are not a like no matter how much you all try and make them so in the eyes of the government. Oh well, yall might as well ride the bandwagon for as long as you can I guess, because that is what has been created here.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



you are absolutely wrong on the meaning of Republic. Republic and Democracy mean the same thing. Those opposed to the constitution were the original Republicans. 

A national referendum might be challenged, but sense the only thing that gives the Constitution legitimacy is its conformity to the will of the people, it is unlikely a court challenge would work.

Our Bill of rights was not originally in the Constitution, they are Amendments passed by a majority vote due to the will of the people.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg


----------



## Flopper (Mar 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...


I think civil rights are the basic issue in this discussion, whether a person has the right to enter into a marriage contract with the person of their choice.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



thats right, and the courts in the south were probably worse than the people as a whole in regard to the issue.....The Supreme court itself has a pathetic history in this regard.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Then you, clearly, need reading comprehension lessons. I never said any such thing. I've told you twice now that the twins were not mine, are not separated and both live with their sister and fathers. I was a gestational surrogate. Look it the fuck up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

The issue is solely about civil rights. 

Various state governments are seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law by denying them access to marriage contracts theyre eligible to enter into. 

Also nonsense is the notion that the courts had their way first. 

The people initially sought to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties by enacting measures offensive to the Constitution; same-sex couples had no other recourse than to seek relief in the Federal courts, where the courts consistently and appropriately applied established and settled 14th Amendment jurisprudence and invalidated those un-Constitutional measures. 

Its ridiculous therefore to argue that citizens whose civil liberties have been violated should be compelled to wait patiently in the hope that at some unknown point in the future the people will acquiesce and allow citizens so adversely effected their civil rights, particularly when its not the peoples place to make such a determination in the first place.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> So why don't you allow the states to vote then, and to have the last word on it in each state...


The issue has nothing to do with anyone allowing the states to do anything; the states as a fact of Constitutional law lack the authority to have the last word as to who will have his civil rights and who will not (_Cooper v. Aaron _(1958)). 

The Federal Constitution, Federal laws, and rulings by Federal courts are supreme, the states are subject to these laws and rulings, and may not enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > So why don't you allow the states to vote then, and to have the last word on it in each state...
> ...



Yet the only body who does have the authority to 'have the last word' as to who will have _the privelege _of marriage [denied also to others besides LGBT cultees] Found last Summer that it was the "unquestioned authority" of the several states to determine, via consensus of the governed, if gay marriage was legal there or not.

Read Windsor.  The attorneys representing Utah have...


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 9, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


The problem with all these comparisons, and the joining together of these things within the "laws" in which allow many rights or the same rights unto people as if they are all the same, is that it is highly dangerous and badly flawed. Why ? It's of course because of the differences in the people themselves (no longer united or even thinking alike), so the laws themselves can't determine whether or not this person or that person should be entitled to certain rights or not to be entitled to certain rights, so what does it do so lazily and foolishly ? Well  it just grants rights to everyone as being the same, and it figures that they will take those rights and be constructive, ethical and moral with them. WOW! 

This has been a flawed idea, and it has been a flawed idea as proven over time now. So how come it just keeps on going and going in the wrong direction, and no one is able to stop and take heed of these things ? 

It is so dangerous, because people are not the same by a long shot anymore, and they can abuse these rights granted unto them at any given time afterwards, and especially once the rights are granted by law unto them as whole groups, when afterwards they may have not deserved them or would ever do right by them as a whole group.  Many times people have abused these rights as were granted under whole group labels, but the rights still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really. 

I think this nation should return to granting individuals rights only under what it is to be labeled American, and the rights being attached to that and not people in general.  We shouldn't be granting rights to whole groups in which is being found in some that they simply hate America, and especially if those groups won't police themselves from within. This therefore allows the devils who are within the group, to enoy the same rights in which the group enjoy's, and that put's those devils right in the same theater with everyone else. Oh yes there are devils who come in and among groups big time, and if the group is ok with that, then Houston we have a serious problem on our hands. 

How do yall think that evil people who are among society, get next to you and your family ? They do it by attaching themselves to others for whom you trust or sometimes through rights that are blanketly granted unto whole groups, in which then allows the devil to sup with them, and to be with them in that group having no problem with that. WOW!

If groups would properly police themselves, and rid themselves of the devils within somehow, then the nation should grant them the same rights that anyone else enjoys as Americans, but in many cases that isn't happening or it hasn't happened therefore leading to many troubles coming out of groups who have been granted access, but it also granted access to their devils who operate from within the group also. It is a HUGE problem!


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 9, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> ..Many times people have abused these *rights* as were granted under whole group labels, but the *rights* still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.
> 
> I think this nation should return to granting individuals *rights* only under what it is to be labeled American, and the *rights* being attached to that and not people in general.  We shouldn't be granting *rights* to whole groups in which is being found in some that they simply hate America, and especially if those groups won't police themselves from within. This therefore allows the devils who are within the group, to enoy the same *rights* in which the group enjoy's, and that put's those devils right in the same theater with everyone else. Oh yes there are devils who come in and among groups big time, and if the group is ok with that, then Houston we have a serious problem on our hands.



The thing is that marriage is not a right.  It is a privelege.  That's why I put the word "privelege' in italics in my last post; _for emphasis_.  

Cult members of the church of LGBT are not the only people denied marriage in the several states.  Minors are.  Polygamists are.  Adult incest couples are.  The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic.  For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics]  The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes that is easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right.  It is a privelege.  LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add.  Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be.  Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood].  It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can.  Driving isn't a right in most states either.  You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road.  Does every driver drive perfectly every time?  No.  But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently.  The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to quailfy people before they are licensed to drive.  And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving.  It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children.  Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children.  Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right.  And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children.  Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage.  Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real.  Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children.  Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at.  ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren.  ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 9, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > ..Many times people have abused these *rights* as were granted under whole group labels, but the *rights* still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.
> ...


Good reading, and the key part was the *swinging the barn door wide open *as you say, where as it (marriage and the downfall of the traditional family) will even be further exploited in it all, until the children are so confused as a result of it all that civilized society will begin to fall in a landslide eventually from these things or even stop in it's existance of. We are seeing the results now in the traditional family desolving into a sespool of adultery and abandonement which is bad enough. We must begin by working to shore up those breeches in these failing institutions I think (it can be done), before we begin to inject more pain and confusion into the frey don't you think ? This government and hollywood, if they would get back to the basics, and begin to promote a *civilized* society again, then the children might have a chance in this world once more, but I don't see it doing nothing but getting worse from here on out. We will end up like the Nazi's soon, where as we will be high tech, but yet we will have lost our own direction in the world. For this we will pay as a nation who had proclaimed to the world that we were the righteous who were among the world, and a becon of light for all the world to follow after, but here we are with that light fading fast, and the world readying itself to except our defeat in these things finally. When that barn door flies open, as it surely will, then we are done.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 11, 2014)

recently read part of a book that contests whether the 14th amendment is legitimate at all.

And ironically enough it was likely proposed to negate SC idiocy in Dred Scott v Sanford

and Barron v Baltimore (sp?)


----------



## Flopper (Mar 11, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > ..Many times people have abused these *rights* as were granted under whole group labels, but the *rights* still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.
> ...


Even if marriage is a privilege, does that mean the state can grant that privilege based solely and arbitrarily on gender?  Driving may be a privilege but denying that privilege is based on sound reasons of public safety. I think it will be incumbent on the states to show that denying the privilege of marriage to same sex couples is likewise based on sound reasons.  That will be difficult because almost all the reasons for denying gay marriage is based religious beliefs, socially accepted patterns of behavior, or just traditional values and that's not going to hold up any better before the Supreme Court than it has in the lower courts.  There is just not enough evidence that gay marriage will damage society and such evidence must exist to deny something so basic and important as the right marry the person of your choice.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 11, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Sil has laid out her case, did you forget already ?


----------

