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

[Silhouette]

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?

To entice the provision of both a mother and father for girls and boys that the state anticipates will statistically arrive in marriages. That provision was revoked without infants agreeing to disaffirm that implied contract. Even if they wished to disaffirm it, they couldn't. Because providing a mother and father in marriage was why the marriage contract was conceived of (pun intended) in the first place; and providing a mother and father to girls and boys is a necessity society can't strip from them out of a convenient and contemporary favor to gays.

 

[bodecea]

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."

1. Don't put words in other people's mouth.
2. It ain't nacheral, Cletus.

1. He had you spot on.
2. Who said it isn't natural? You?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Or what? Will you hold your breath? Stomp your feet? Threaten to attack more gay people?

I responded 3 different times to 3 different pieces of content.

Though to be fair- I could have just said "this is just more stupid Silhouette crap" in one post.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

. That provision was revoked without infants agreeing to disaffirm that implied contract..

I am just curious- how would infants agree- or disagree to this fantasy contract you talk of?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Gay Marriage gets 14 paragraphs and Citizens United gets 3 sentences. Proof of what is wrong with us.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

What sexual unions?

The State is involved with marriage- which often includes sex- but like children- is not required.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay Marriage gets 14 paragraphs and Citizens United gets 3 sentences. Proof of what is wrong with us.

They are both equally dangerous to American Law and democracy though...

 

[mdk]

They are both equally dangerous to American Law and democracy though...

 

[Silhouette]

Dissolving infants rights per contract and creating a back door for foriegn enemies to affect our elections...

...internet troll mdk finds this "hilariously funny". Yes, our country is guaranteed to spiral down the commode if this type of mindset sits in the Oval Office, the Judicial and Congress for 8 more years...(Supreme Court for life..)

 

[Hossfly]

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."

1. Don't put words in other people's mouth.
2. It ain't nacheral, Cletus.

1. He had you spot on.
2. Who said it isn't natural? You?

 

[JoeB131]

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

Buddy, the real reason why you don't see liberals going out for the heretic Mormon creeps is there aren't that many of them, and a lot of them are fucking creepy as hell. It's like they take the normal Mormon Creepy and crank it up to 11.

Thankfully, there aren't enough of these pedophile creeps to make political waves.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Fetuses aren't babies, and there were just as many abortions happening before Roe as after Roe.

Except back then, the doctors performed abortions and wrote something else down on the chart.

 

[Silhouette]

Buddy, the real reason why you don't see liberals going out for the heretic Mormon creeps is there aren't that many of them, and a lot of them are fucking creepy as hell. It's like they take the normal Mormon Creepy and crank it up to 11.

Thankfully, there aren't enough of these pedophile creeps to make political waves.

Nice backpeddling there Joe. Because previously you accused that mormons were 60 year old men trying to marry 14 year old girls. You were acting judgmental towards their sex lives. Your buddy Harvey Milk, for example, was sodomizing a 16 year old minor regularly, and dragging him across state lines while doing it. That only meets with your defense and approval; making excuses for Milk right and left. The oldest boy he ever sodomized was 22, as he aged into his 40s. Yet his cause of "gay rights!" is A-OK in your book.

I guess it just depends on which cult you belong to, that determines how the US Supreme Court sees your attitudes about sexualizing children. After all, the Court created a brand new class JUST for your sexual behavior. It seems to really like your cult the best of all the organized deviant sex behaviors out there! It must feel good to feel special, set above the others. No wonder you look down on them..

 

[Syriusly]

Dissolving infants rights per contract and creating a back door for foriegn enemies to affect our elections...

...internet troll mdk finds this "hilariously funny". Yes, our country is guaranteed to spiral down the commode if this type of mindset sits in the Oval Office, the Judicial and Congress for 8 more years...(Supreme Court for life..)

Nobody has 'dissolved infant rights'- no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

I think Citizen United is a bad ruling- the recourse to a bad Supreme Court decision is a Constitutional Amendment- which so far is going no where.

 

[Syriusly]

Buddy, the real reason why you don't see liberals going out for the heretic Mormon creeps is there aren't that many of them, and a lot of them are fucking creepy as hell. It's like they take the normal Mormon Creepy and crank it up to 11.

Thankfully, there aren't enough of these pedophile creeps to make political waves.

Your buddy Harvey Milk, for example, was sodomizing a 16 year old minor regularly, and dragging him across state lines while doing it.

As you know- there is no evidence Milk ever 'sodomized' anyone. No one has ever accused Milk of ever having sex with a minor. Let alone taking any minor across state lines. Remember- the voices in your head are not 'facts'

However, your buddy Elvis, for example- that sexual icon- may well have been sodomizing 16 year old Priscilla, who he lured from Germany to the United States under false premises.

 

[Votto]

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?

Fetuses aren't babies, and there were just as many abortions happening before Roe as after Roe.

Except back then, the doctors performed abortions and wrote something else down on the chart.

Today abortion doctors like Gosnell do as they please killing both viable babies and mothers alike for decades before being stopped, that is, if we are lucky.

 

[Silhouette]

Looks like a strawman ^^

 

[JoeB131]

Nice backpeddling there Joe. Because previously you accused that mormons were 60 year old men trying to marry 14 year old girls. You were acting judgmental towards their sex lives.

The thing is, the 14 year old girls didn't have any say in the matter. Their Dad's passed them off to church elders hoping to get an E-ticket to the Celestial Heaven. (That's the whacky Mormon Heaven where you get to fuck spirit wives for all eternity and make billions of spirit children.) That's what makes it creepy.

Your buddy Harvey Milk, for example, was sodomizing a 16 year old minor regularly, and dragging him across state lines while doing it. That only meets with your defense and approval; making excuses for Milk right and left. The oldest boy he ever sodomized was 22, as he aged into his 40s. Yet his cause of "gay rights!" is A-OK in your book.

THat 16 year old was a male prostitute Milk got off of the streets and helped him kick a drug habit, but off course, all you see is the butt-sex. Because you just can't stop talking about the butt sex.

I guess it just depends on which cult you belong to, that determines how the US Supreme Court sees your attitudes about sexualizing children. After all, the Court created a brand new class JUST for your sexual behavior. It seems to really like your cult the best of all the organized deviant sex behaviors out there! It must feel good to feel special, set above the others. No wonder you look down on them..

sorry, Dude, I'm straight and my sex life is kind of vanilla and boring.

The law sees the difference between a 22 year old and a 14 year old.

 

[JoeB131]

Today abortion doctors like Gosnell do as they please killing both viable babies and mothers alike for decades before being stopped, that is, if we are lucky.

Yes, medical care generally sucks when you are poor, but then again, what doesn't.

not that your sort is ever for giving poor people access to the same medical care you get.

 

[Skylar]

so this is the argument? That the White House had a light display ready in solidarity with a decision everyone new was coming?

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..

Sure they should have. The USSC telegraphed their sentiment on the matter in the WIndsor decision. You just ddin't know what the fuck you were talking about in your analysis of it.

For crying out loud, even Scalia knew what was coming. He told us so in his dissent on Windsor in 2013. (bold added for emphasis)

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “‘bare . . . desire to harm’" couples in same-sex marriages.

How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Please note the terms 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'.

And finally....how long does it take to change out the gels on a few lights? The white house could have had that ready in 15 minutes, tops. And they had *hours*. Adding another layer of useless conspiracy batshit to your argument that is already nothing but pseudo-legal gibberish.