A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned

[Contumacious]

Exhibit A:

This is a picture of the Whitehouse just a few hours after the Obergefell 2015 Decision was announced in June 2015. The problem with this is, things take time at the Whitehouse to get approved, set up and changed. Days at least for a complete light show on the Whitehouse.

Yet we have the supposed first sign of the Obergefell Decision with reporters sprinting out to their cameras from the Courthouse the day the Decision was handed down.

So...for those a little confused here, at the very least, the Whitehouse seemed to have direct knowledge to set up a rainbow light show displayed just a few hours after the Obergefell Decision was announced. Which is problematic in itself.

But... The fact that the Whitehouse, the Executive Branch of government, sought to flaunt a minority victory of a new description of marriage (of which kids were not allowed to the contract revision hearing, in violation of law: Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling? | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ) was a form of authoritarian tyranny. Many many millions of people voted in their states to keep a mother and father for children in marriage (man/woman marriage). But those child custodians were not honored as to this brand new challenge to the millennial-old marriage contract. This rainbow display on the Whitehouse was the act of a fascist dictator....who from all appearances seemed to have known the outcome of Obergefell days before anyone else did..

Two Supreme Court Justices presided over gay weddings as the question of law "should the fed preside over the states on the question of gay marriage" was pending before the High Court. According to their own Law they made in 2009 (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal), they could not sit on the Obergefell Hearing. Yet they did.

Now, we have president Obama throwing off any remaining shreds of the veil he once wore and is not simply acting as King Obama; issuing royal mandates from his rainbow-throne at the Oval Office.

So, we have evidence that the US Supreme Court communicated with the Executive Branch before anyone else on how the gay marriage decision was going to come down.....as if there was any question of that after Justices Ginsburg and Kagan violated Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal.... We have the Executive Branch flaunting one side of a Supreme Court decision. Let me illustrate an equivalent here. It would be like if there was a victory for Exxon Oil in a sensitive environment in a coast region, of which the clear majority of voters in that region flatly rejected, where the Supreme Court told voters to go pound sand. Then, within not even one day after that Decision, the Whitehouse under, say, Bush, displayed an Exxon logo lighting effect on its exterior front that night.

You would question that. Yes, you would.

And now we have the President turning into a King. America, you have a very very serious problem with the separation of powers becoming bedfellows. When that happens, everything that every soldier who ever fought for our country's independence as as self-ruled nation, is wasted, lost. All that bloodshed becomes just biding time for tyranny to take over to make this the ephemeral utopia for (fill in the blank) tyrant of the day's fashion and design.

Watch out. The Judicial and the Executive aren't even trying to hide their cozy relationship anymore. It was why our founding fathers agonized over how Justices should be selected. The Legislature, should there be an upcoming vacancy on the Court, must triple-down on their scrutiny of any prospective appointee to the Court to fill whoever's shoes. If we keep on picking politicized pocket-Justices, we are heading for very very big trouble. It may seem really cool and tempting to pick a judge who leans your way politically in preference to being unbiased and objective; but this is perhaps one of the most dangerous mistakes to our American way of life.

Instead of being humbled by the positions of power they hold, our current Tryst of Traitors are seeming to not only quite enjoy their Unlimited Power, but also are flaunting that enjoyment to a bruised and battered Citizenry, complete with their buddy at the Whitehouse...excuse me...the Rainbowhouse... When someone with unlimited power tells you "I'm flaunting my feeling of power over you"..you'd better run for the hills. Next, they will take away your second amendment. It is a logical progression after all...

Exhibit B: Citizen's United.
In Citizen's United we have a loophole created where not only can foreigners act as citizens without going through naturalization, swearing our Oath and renouncing their former allegiance to another country, they also get to act as Supercitizens, using their massive money to directly influence our most sacred democratic rule, the power of the vote in elections. I'll just say this to illustrate my point of the DANGER of this Decision: Our worst enemies are some of the richest nations on earth and some of them own controlling interest in massive American enterprises. 1+1=2 Do the math...

The buffoons we have sitting on the Court today are largely ruled by sentimentalism, trends...and...*ahem*... economics. They arent' even aware of how contract laws work; or our tomes of laws to protect minors interests first over adults. They can't grasp the BASIC CONCEPT of not allowing foreign influences to affect our elections...even from our sworn enemies! If the Court's conservative side had five members as flagrantly biased and unqualified for the job as its liberal members, you'd have Citizen's United type laws handed down every other day. The next Justice picked must have a brain AND a soul. Let's make sure that happens.

Two Decisions that must be overturned in the near future with a new Court:

1. Obergefell 2015, for flagrant bias (Caperton 2009), and refusing to honor infants in contract law revision.

2. Citizens United, for creating a backdoor for foreigners to not have to naturalize, renounce their allegiance to a foreign nation (even our enemies) while wielding the most supreme influence over our most sublime form of democracy: elections and the vote.

Thems two gots ta go..

STUPID FUCK



THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A GODDAMNED TYRANNY WHICH EXERCISES ALL KINDS OF EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.

THE CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE KNOWS NO LIMITS.


BUT THE OP IS ONLY CONCERNED BECAUSE SOME AMERICANS NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET LEGALLY BUTT-FUCKED. , WHO GIVES A SHIT.

PRIORITIZE.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Who cares what animals do? I couldn't care less if two sword swallowers get married. The thing that I hate is having it shoved in my face.

well, you need to stop trolling the gay bars if you don't want things shoved in your face.

But your argument was that it "wasn't natural". That would imply it is a deviant behavior invented by humans, as opposed to something other animals have been doing since before humans evolved.

 

[Silhouette]

Exhibit A:

STUPID FUCK....THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A GODDAMNED TYRANNY WHICH EXERCISES ALL KINDS OF EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS....THE CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE KNOWS NO LIMITS....BUT THE OP IS ONLY CONCERNED BECAUSE SOME AMERICANS NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET LEGALLY BUTT-FUCKED. , WHO GIVES A SHIT...PRIORITIZE.

.

So...you're saying that even though we are now facing a blatant display of the Judicial being in bed with the Executive, we should all ignore it and go about our business as if the erosion of everything every soldier died for since the dawn of our nation "doesn't really matter"..?

Did I get that about right?

And your thoughts on Citizen's United?...

 

[TheCrusader]

It's this fucking easy. "Hey go put some rainbow colored filters on the big bright white lights out side."

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Personally, I don't give a crap who marries who its none of my business but it's not for the Fed to decide either. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore, it falls to the States to decide.

 

[JoeB131]

Personally, I don't give a crap who marries who its none of my business but it's not for the Fed to decide either. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore, it falls to the States to decide.

except the courts have ruled the right to marriage is an individual right, most notably Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the mixed marriage laws.

 

[Votto]

No need to talk about it. I'm counting on the Big Guy In The Sky to put things right.

Well, if hoping your imaginary friend in the sky is going to take care of you, that's great and all.

I want to deal with real problems in the here and now.

So one more time. DO you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "I think it's icky (when it's two dude)" and "My Imaginary Pixie in the Sky says it's bad."

It's really the same argument the current powers that be oppose polygamists from getting married.

For you see, polygamists simply don't have the money to throw at legislators in order to get their way. That is because instead of using their money to throw at Washington, they are raising rather large families instead.

Raising large families is not what the DNC is about. The DNC is all about reducing the size and scope of the population through such things as abortion and selling gay marriage as normal. For you see, they think that with every death or prevented birth, a little carbon angel is born somewhere as their carbon footprint never sees the light of day in order to save the goddess mother earth.

Trying to argue with the dead heads by saying that their is no difference in allowing gays to marry but not polygamists is the same as trying to splain to them that there is no real difference in aborting a fetus minutes before it is born verses minutes after it is born. I'm not sure if they are just retarded or abhorrently evil.

Also notice how the evil retards ignore the fact that some of the justices on the courts had been a part of gay marriages in the past, a clear violation of the law in sitting over this case.

Disgusting.

 

[JoeB131]

It's really the same argument the current powers that be oppose polygamists from getting married.

For you see, polygamists simply don't have the money to throw at legislators in order to get their way. That is because instead of using their money to throw at Washington, they are raising rather large families instead.

Raising large families is not what the DNC is about. The DNC is all about reducing the size and scope of the population through such things as abortion and selling gay marriage as normal. For you see, they think that with every death or prevented birth, a little carbon angel is born somewhere as their carbon footprint never sees the light of day.

Trying to argue with the dead heads by saying that their is no difference in allowing gays to marry but not polygamists is the same as trying to splain to them that there is no real difference in aborting a fetus minutes before it is born verses minutes after it is born. I'm not sure if they are just retarded or abhorrently evil.

Also notice how the evil retards ignore the fact that some of the justices on the courts had been a part of gay marriages, a clear violation of the law in sitting over this case.

I don't see any liberals or democrats arguing against polygamy laws. The fact is, the strongest opponents of polygamists are the mainstream Mormon Church, because they treat polygamists kind of like the crazy uncle who shows up at thanksgiving and spills all the dirt on the family.

That and the people who practice polygamy are usually repulsive groups like the FLDS, which marry off 14 year olds to 60 year old men.

 

[Votto]

It's really the same argument the current powers that be oppose polygamists from getting married.

For you see, polygamists simply don't have the money to throw at legislators in order to get their way. That is because instead of using their money to throw at Washington, they are raising rather large families instead.

Raising large families is not what the DNC is about. The DNC is all about reducing the size and scope of the population through such things as abortion and selling gay marriage as normal. For you see, they think that with every death or prevented birth, a little carbon angel is born somewhere as their carbon footprint never sees the light of day.

Trying to argue with the dead heads by saying that their is no difference in allowing gays to marry but not polygamists is the same as trying to splain to them that there is no real difference in aborting a fetus minutes before it is born verses minutes after it is born. I'm not sure if they are just retarded or abhorrently evil.

Also notice how the evil retards ignore the fact that some of the justices on the courts had been a part of gay marriages, a clear violation of the law in sitting over this case.

I don't see any liberals or democrats arguing against polygamy laws. The fact is, the strongest opponents of polygamists are the mainstream Mormon Church, because they treat polygamists kind of like the crazy uncle who shows up at thanksgiving and spills all the dirt on the family.

That and the people who practice polygamy are usually repulsive groups like the FLDS, which marry off 14 year olds to 60 year old men.

You are correct, Progs do like deviant sexual arrangements (I stand corrected) but if they don't pay up then their "rights" will be ignored, along with the rest of the country.

It's all about the money honey.

Incidentally, why should the state have any interest in regards to our sexual arrangements?

It seems to me that if we really wanted the state out of the bedroom then the state would not show an interest at all. But alas, Progs love it when people watch I suppose. Maybe they will get a call from President Obama to congratulate them for sticking their shlong up someone's arse

 

[Votto]

Everyone should not know what Decision is coming from the United States Supreme Court. Yes. But it's not an "argument". I don't feel the need to argue the basic foundations of the charges and duties of the US Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch of government to maintain its one tenet of Office: THE APPEARANCE OF REMAINING IMPARTIAL UNTIL ALL DELIBERATIONS HAVE ENDED.

Might try retaking American Goverment, the Jr High level course..

Hello, real world, guy. One could tell from the arguments which way the court was likely to rule. The fact was, nearly every lower court that had heard this issue struck down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. The Judicial Branch had pretty much weighed in on this issue well before Obergefell.

The point is, this issue IS over. Done. It isn't going to change. Even the Republican candidates aren't talking about this anymore because it makes them look like assholes.

No need to talk about it. I'm counting on the Big Guy In The Sky to put things right.

You are correct. They US has killed over 50 million unborn babies since Roe vs. Wade.

Now God has allowed politicians to assume power who have embraced policies that are destroying the country. Coincidence?

 

[Seawytch]

No need to talk about it. I'm counting on the Big Guy In The Sky to put things right.

Well, if hoping your imaginary friend in the sky is going to take care of you, that's great and all.

I want to deal with real problems in the here and now.

So one more time. DO you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "I think it's icky (when it's two dude)" and "My Imaginary Pixie in the Sky says it's bad."

It's really the same argument the current powers that be oppose polygamists from getting married.

For you see, polygamists simply don't have the money to throw at legislators in order to get their way. That is because instead of using their money to throw at Washington, they are raising rather large families instead.

Raising large families is not what the DNC is about. The DNC is all about reducing the size and scope of the population through such things as abortion and selling gay marriage as normal. For you see, they think that with every death or prevented birth, a little carbon angel is born somewhere as their carbon footprint never sees the light of day in order to save the goddess mother earth.

Trying to argue with the dead heads by saying that their is no difference in allowing gays to marry but not polygamists is the same as trying to splain to them that there is no real difference in aborting a fetus minutes before it is born verses minutes after it is born. I'm not sure if they are just retarded or abhorrently evil.

Also notice how the evil retards ignore the fact that some of the justices on the courts had been a part of gay marriages in the past, a clear violation of the law in sitting over this case.

Disgusting.

No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage
Unlike gay marriage, polygamy is not a new idea. It's a standard form of marriage, dating back, of course, to Biblical times and before, and anthropologists say that 85 percent of human societies have permitted it. This means we know a thing or two about it.​

Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.​

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

I'm not just making this up. There's an extensive literature on polygamy.

Here’s a 2012 study, for example, that discovered “significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.” According to the research, “monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.”​

The study found that monogamous marriage “results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.” And: “by shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment.”[...]

Next, a point of law: In order to stand up in court, a challenged law normally needs only to survive what's called a rational-basis test. That's a low bar: the government merely needs to be able to claim that its law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

The trouble that gay-marriage opponents kept running into was that they could not surmount this very low bar, because they couldn't explain how preventing gay couples from marrying served any of the state's claimed goals. Nor could they show any plausible harm from gay marriage. Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority in Obergefell makes this point explicitly: "With respect to this asserted basis for excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties."

Here again, the situation with polygamy is diametrically different. There is ample evidence that polygamy has many severe consequences for third parties and for society as a whole, and the social interests at stake are very obviously related to a legitimate government purpose (many purposes, in fact). There's no way the ban on polygamy could fail a rational-basis test.

Ah, but what if rational-basis isn't the standard the courts apply? What if they find that polygamy implicates a fundamental right? In that case, "strict scrutiny" would normally apply. That's a higher bar: the law under challenge must further a "compelling government interest" and must be narrowly tailored to achieve its goal.

The ban on polygamous marriage quite easily passes this test, too. The government's interest is as compelling as they come, and the policy is tailored quite appropriately to fit the goal. Remember: it's legal for a man to live with multiple women, have sex with multiple women, and even raise children with multiple women (or men!). All the government is doing is denying plural relationships the specific government benefit of a marriage license. This is a well-tailored way to prefer and institutionalize monogamy, without making private consensual conduct illegal.

It also avoids forcing the government to redefine marital relationships in all kinds of ways, because there is no existing template for polygamy. Think about it. Does a polygamous license marry all the wives in a polygynous combination to each other, or each separately to the man? Among multiple spouses, who has primacy in medical decision-making? When kids are born into multiples, do all spouses get some form of parenting rights? How would divorce and alimony work?

Allowing same-sex couples to marry requires only small institutional and legal adjustments (like revising gendered language on some documents). In sharp distinction, polygamy requires making a host of contentious social and legal decisions to rewire marital arrangements pretty much from scratch.
​

But hey...good luck with your case anyway.

​

 

[Votto]

No need to talk about it. I'm counting on the Big Guy In The Sky to put things right.

Well, if hoping your imaginary friend in the sky is going to take care of you, that's great and all.

I want to deal with real problems in the here and now.

So one more time. DO you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "I think it's icky (when it's two dude)" and "My Imaginary Pixie in the Sky says it's bad."

It's really the same argument the current powers that be oppose polygamists from getting married.

For you see, polygamists simply don't have the money to throw at legislators in order to get their way. That is because instead of using their money to throw at Washington, they are raising rather large families instead.

Raising large families is not what the DNC is about. The DNC is all about reducing the size and scope of the population through such things as abortion and selling gay marriage as normal. For you see, they think that with every death or prevented birth, a little carbon angel is born somewhere as their carbon footprint never sees the light of day in order to save the goddess mother earth.

Trying to argue with the dead heads by saying that their is no difference in allowing gays to marry but not polygamists is the same as trying to splain to them that there is no real difference in aborting a fetus minutes before it is born verses minutes after it is born. I'm not sure if they are just retarded or abhorrently evil.

Also notice how the evil retards ignore the fact that some of the justices on the courts had been a part of gay marriages in the past, a clear violation of the law in sitting over this case.

Disgusting.

No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage
Unlike gay marriage, polygamy is not a new idea. It's a standard form of marriage, dating back, of course, to Biblical times and before, and anthropologists say that 85 percent of human societies have permitted it. This means we know a thing or two about it.​

Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.​

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

I'm not just making this up. There's an extensive literature on polygamy.

Here’s a 2012 study, for example, that discovered “significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.” According to the research, “monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.”​

The study found that monogamous marriage “results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.” And: “by shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment.”[...]

Next, a point of law: In order to stand up in court, a challenged law normally needs only to survive what's called a rational-basis test. That's a low bar: the government merely needs to be able to claim that its law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

The trouble that gay-marriage opponents kept running into was that they could not surmount this very low bar, because they couldn't explain how preventing gay couples from marrying served any of the state's claimed goals. Nor could they show any plausible harm from gay marriage. Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority in Obergefell makes this point explicitly: "With respect to this asserted basis for excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties."

Here again, the situation with polygamy is diametrically different. There is ample evidence that polygamy has many severe consequences for third parties and for society as a whole, and the social interests at stake are very obviously related to a legitimate government purpose (many purposes, in fact). There's no way the ban on polygamy could fail a rational-basis test.

Ah, but what if rational-basis isn't the standard the courts apply? What if they find that polygamy implicates a fundamental right? In that case, "strict scrutiny" would normally apply. That's a higher bar: the law under challenge must further a "compelling government interest" and must be narrowly tailored to achieve its goal.

The ban on polygamous marriage quite easily passes this test, too. The government's interest is as compelling as they come, and the policy is tailored quite appropriately to fit the goal. Remember: it's legal for a man to live with multiple women, have sex with multiple women, and even raise children with multiple women (or men!). All the government is doing is denying plural relationships the specific government benefit of a marriage license. This is a well-tailored way to prefer and institutionalize monogamy, without making private consensual conduct illegal.

It also avoids forcing the government to redefine marital relationships in all kinds of ways, because there is no existing template for polygamy. Think about it. Does a polygamous license marry all the wives in a polygynous combination to each other, or each separately to the man? Among multiple spouses, who has primacy in medical decision-making? When kids are born into multiples, do all spouses get some form of parenting rights? How would divorce and alimony work?

Allowing same-sex couples to marry requires only small institutional and legal adjustments (like revising gendered language on some documents). In sharp distinction, polygamy requires making a host of contentious social and legal decisions to rewire marital arrangements pretty much from scratch.
​

But hey...good luck with your case anyway.

​

I could show you statistics on STD's and AIDS when it comes to gay sex in the US as well.

Gay and bisexual men account for well over half the AIDS cases in the US, but are only about 5% of the population, at least, according to Obama's CDC.

These are inconvenient truths you might say that you demand to ignore or explain away.

So who cares? I thought this was a "free" country. If people choose to do themselves harm, who are we to tell them otherwise? If so, then allow people like polygamists to marry. If not, then outlaw gay sex.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I could show you statistics on STD's and AIDS when it comes to gay sex in the US as well.

Gay and bisexual men account for well over half the AIDS cases in the US, but are only about 5% of the population, at least, according to Obama's CDC.

These are inconvenient truths you might say that you demand to ignore or explain away.

So who cares? I thought this was a "free" country. If people choose to do themselves harm, who are we to tell them otherwise? If so, then allow people like polygamists to marry. If not, then outlaw gay sex.

Thank you for providing justification in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage since Civil Marriage is a strong means of promoting monogamous relationships.

Now that we have SSCM, then in the impact of monogamous relationships should eventually decrease (sadly it will probably take a couple of generations) the promiscuity in the homosexual male population.

Well done.


BTW - Polygamous sex (i.e. sex with multiple partners) isn't outlawed, so why should not having polygamous civil marriage result in making same-sex relations illegal.?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you for providing justification in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage since Civil Marriage is a strong means of promoting monogamous relationships.

Now that we have SSCM, then in the impact of monogamous relationships should eventually decrease (sadly it will probably take a couple of generations) the promiscuity in the homosexual male population....Well done.

1. Yes, gay marriage was a new idea, as opposed to polygamy. Though it was the general sentiment that polygamy should not be legal. Not just five Justices on the Court. So any court decision reflected the general sentiment on this other type of deviant sex behavior/couplings... Odd that the LGBT crew would cite "polygamy is illegal because the general sentiment was/is against it". And while majorities in every state except I think four or five all rejected the other behavior, "gay", just five on the Court overruled them.. Illegally as it turns out. Do you know what people most often cite as the reason they're against polygamy? Because of what that type of marriage does to the children involved...

And on that topic...

2. Obergefell stripped, for the first time in human history, the most important set of contract parties of their right to both a mother and father in marriage. It was in fact that ancient-established contractual right that the word "marriage" came into existence over a thousand years ago. And it was maintained that way for the children up until June last year. No children were invited to that Hearing. And even when children raised by gays voiced in opposition (see my signature), their voices were ignored.

ie: it seems that when gays want marriage, children don't matter. When polygamists want marriage, then it's "all about the children...think of the children...this will hurt the children...". Want to know what hurts a boy or a girl in a married home? The systematic removal of either a father or mother for life...That mentor? GONE... Thanks "gay marriage".

Worldwatcher takes the definition of marriage from "for the children" and turns it into "a hopeful project to cure notorious gay promiscuity". "As a benefit to society". The children involved in this experiment? Who gives a fuck? They can't vote.

 

[Silhouette]

That and the people who practice polygamy are usually repulsive groups like the FLDS, which marry off 14 year olds to 60 year old men.

All of them? Really? Look at you who just gained victories using the slogan "don't be prejudiced...not all gays dry hump in pride parades in front of kids!" And yet here you are with the ink barely dry on Obergefell, touting that "we should deny polygamists marriage because they're all a bunch of freaks pawning off 14 year old girls to 60 year old men!"

I guess we should all take a look at any marriage that might hurt children, eh? Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling? | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Exhibit A:

This is a picture of the Whitehouse just a few hours after the Obergefell 2015 Decision was announced in June 2015. The problem with this is, things take time at the Whitehouse to get approved, set up and changed. Days at least for a complete light show on the Whitehouse...

LOL.....yet you have no picture.....

Another thread- another fantasy spun from Silhouette's mind.

 

[Syriusly]

[
The fact that one could tell which way the Court was likely to Rule BEFORE IT DID is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM... (Also: see "Ginsburg" & "Kagan")...

I pointed this out the last time this idiocy was being posted.

In San Francisco, the planning for the Giant's World Series victory started months before the World Series.

To most people- this is just rational planning for a potential outcome- but to Silhouette this would be a sign that the World Series was rigged.....

 

[Syriusly]

[
2. Obergefell stripped, for the first time in human history, the most important set of contract parties of their right to both a mother and father in marriage. It was in fact that ancient-established contractual right that the word "marriage" came into existence over a thousand years ago. And it was maintained that way for the children up until June last year. No children were invited to that Hearing. And even when children raised by gays voiced in opposition (see my signature), their voices were ignored.
e.

There isn't an actual fact in that entire post.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, you took three posts to answer one poster. That has to stop. It is a form of spam and like the general MO of your ilk, you've learned a clandestine way to break the rules without it appearing as if you are culpable for any of the real harm you're doing.. Knock it off.

 

[Votto]

I could show you statistics on STD's and AIDS when it comes to gay sex in the US as well.

Gay and bisexual men account for well over half the AIDS cases in the US, but are only about 5% of the population, at least, according to Obama's CDC.

These are inconvenient truths you might say that you demand to ignore or explain away.

So who cares? I thought this was a "free" country. If people choose to do themselves harm, who are we to tell them otherwise? If so, then allow people like polygamists to marry. If not, then outlaw gay sex.

Thank you for providing justification in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage since Civil Marriage is a strong means of promoting monogamous relationships.

Now that we have SSCM, then in the impact of monogamous relationships should eventually decrease (sadly it will probably take a couple of generations) the promiscuity in the homosexual male population.

Well done.


BTW - Polygamous sex (i.e. sex with multiple partners) isn't outlawed, so why should not having polygamous civil marriage result in making same-sex relations illegal.?


>>>>

You don't understand my position. The state should not be endorsing any sexual relationship of any kind. Marriage should be done on a private basis with no state involvement.

This should cause only religious folk to get married, although, secular people are free to get married by their pagan priest or priestess, but why bother?

If not, what is a compelling argument for a secular state to be involved with sexual unions?