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

[BlackSand]

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]

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.

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.

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]

SCOTUS opinions are very clear, and clearly the current runs against hetero-fascists.

 

[BlackSand]

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]

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...

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? 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 children.

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 as the first gay to hold public office in a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness.

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.

So guilt by accusation is fact.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Gay marriage? We can't have weird shit going on in Utah, now, can we?

 

[Silhouette]

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]

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...

In the US, everyone is equal. Maybe Utah should secede and form its own communist state.

 

[koshergrl]

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? 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 children.

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 as the first gay to hold public office in a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness.

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.

So guilt by accusation is fact.

Yup. If you worship the largest offenders, it's going to be assumed you agree with their overall philosophy.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

.

dear fucking clown.

Your idiot minions keep saying its not real.

eat shit liar

 

[Truthmatters]

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]

tm, go take your meds.

 

[Silhouette]

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...

In the US, everyone is equal. Maybe Utah should secede and form its own communist state.

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]

tm, go take your meds.

truth are my meds.


Facts are my meds.

try them sometime

 

[Truthmatters]

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]

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]

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?

That was you.

and forcing people to marry?

Again, YOU.

The material came from your quote.

It came from YOU. That is demonstrated by your failure to link to where I said it.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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...

In the US, everyone is equal. Maybe Utah should secede and form its own communist state.

So you're saying polygamy should be allowed in Utah? Like I said, don't hold your breath on this SCOTUS making that happen..

True conservatives and libertarians would think so.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

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

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" ​