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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

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.

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 .

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]

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:

(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.

(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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

Sil does not want to understand.

It's that simple.

Sil is wrong. Hard for Sil, that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.



>>>>

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]

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]

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?

If pigs flew out of your ass you could fuck them. Seriously?!? That's what you come back with, an absurd "what if"?

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?"

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]

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.

Which state requires procreation as a qualifier for a civil marriage license?

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?

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]

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.

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]

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
>>>>

Meh...they probably believe the Gay Agenda is real too...

The Gay Agenda Revealed!

 

[Bumberclyde]

Mormons are anti-freedom, everyone knows that. Homophobic too.

 

[Seawytch]

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.



>>>>

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.

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?

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?

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]

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.

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]

If pigs flew out of your ass you could fuck them. Seriously?!? That's what you come back with, an absurd "what if"?

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?"

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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?"

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.

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.

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?