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

[JakeStarkey]

Hetero-fascistic babble.

We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.

"It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you for your entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance. Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME to the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning:



The "Nuh-huh" defense.


​

Hetero-fascistic babble.

We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.

"It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.

 

[Yurt]

LOL even newcomers know jake is a lying fool

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hetero-fascistic babble.

We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.

Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you for you entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance. Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning: The "Nuh-huh" defense. ​

Mockery informs us of Where_'s inability to negate the points against is arguments.

Will he have the strength of character to tell us he is relying on "natural law" as the basis of his defense of one man/ one woman marriage chant?

 

[Iceweasel]

"It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.

No, that isn't what marriage is unless it been decided by the state, hopefully not imposed by a radical minority. Same gender marriage is an immitation of traditional marriage. Why two men anyway? Why not three men? Are you closed minded? Traditional?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you, for your entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance. Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME to the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning:



The "Nuh-huh" defense.


​

Hetero-fascistic babble.

We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.

"It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.

LOL even newcomers know jake is a lying fool

Yes... I wanted to give him a big send out, cause he's tried SO HARD!

But unfortunately Jake didn't make the intellectual cut.

He has a lot of heart, but he just doesn't have the intellectual means to acquire the skills that would provide for his contributions to be worthy of consideration. So I've had to cut him from the line up.

(He rode poor old Barb like a rented mule last night.) It was embarrassing to watch. I felt bad for both of 'em. Particularly Barb.

I had hopes that in the light of day he'd improve, but, sadly, it got worse.

Turns out that he's a mimic too and they're just sad.

They literally contest that which they feel, in their own mind, is winning the argument, so instead of changing their point of view to reflect the superior reasoning, they mimic the style of the purveyor of such, erroneously feeling that THAT represents the weight of the argument.

But in short, yes. They're idiots.

 

[BlackSand]

If you will accept NOTHING as fact you cant USE facts.

if this one is fact than you have to accept your fucking party has cheated in elections for decades

The SCOTUS agrees

So are you suggesting that a party ... In the case of the "Consent Decree" the Republican party ... "Has cheated for decades" because the Supreme Court dismissed hearing a case that would remove a measure that has supposedly eliminated cheating for the last 3 decades?
You need to get your interpretation of the facts straight ... It either works or it doesn't ... Make up your mind please.

.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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)



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?



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.

My 'right to be' a heterosexual, would be sustained by my responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right.

My right to freely exercise my religion is sustained by my not exercising my religion to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

For instance, I would not exercise my right to be sexually normal, in such a way that would threaten the means to another to exercise their right to be sexually normal.

And as far as that goes, I do not exercise my rights in any way that threatens the means of others to be sexually abnormal, as long as they are not subjectively rationalizing that their need for sexual gratification overrides my right to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature, which provide that Children are not suitable sexual partners.

Now the thing about right sustaining responsibilities is that, where someone threatens one's means to exercise their rights, it falls to the righteous to defend themselves from that threat.

This is me, defending my means to exercise my right to reason objectively, which is sustained by my responsibility to not exercise my right to the detriment of another to do the same.

Which is threatened by those who eschew objectivity.

To take it a step further, I claim the right to keep my sexual life private. In sustaining that right I bear the responsibility to not publicly discuss my sexual life. I do not require the culture to salute my sexual desires. As I require the public to leave me alone on the subject.

I don't go out and lobby congress to allow me to marry. I don't ask for permission from anyone to do what I am rightfully entitled to do. I just do it.

This in contrast say, YOU, who requires that the public RECOGNIZE you as a person who craves sexual gratification from people of her own gender.

IF I were saddled with such, I'd just go about my business and wouldn't ask anyone to accept it or not. As, I do not give a red rat's ass what anyone thinks about my sexual life. But it truth, it's never come up, BECAUSE: I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC.

See how that works?

Here, say it with me: "I DO NOT DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC."

Doesn't that feel good? It frees you, doesn't it?

There're those things which are appropriate for public discourse and those things which are PRIVATE, thus are INAPPROPRIATE for public discourse.

YOU, on the other hand, CLAIM the right to sexual privacy, while you simultaneously PROMOTE YOUR SEXUAL LIFE, going so far as to DEFINE YOURSELF, BY YOUR SEXUALITY.

You are sexually abnormal, great, who gives a fuck, as long as ya stay away from the kids.

But, it's not enough for you to just BE what you are, which is what you people claim to want.

No, NO! You can't even be satisfied with EVERYONE SALUTING YOU FOR WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE! You NEED THE ENTIRE WORLD TO PRETEND THAT YOUR NORMAL, WHEN YOU ARE DECIDEDLY ABNORMAL.

You claim that you're just being honest, when EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR MOVEMENT IS A LIE!

We call this INSANITY.

Anything gettin' through here?

We call your post insanity too. Rambling insanity.

Wanting to be legally married is not "discussing in public what is private". It's just a marriage license drama queen.

Ya do?

That's fine.

Reason suggest however that given your inability to contest the "insanity", that your intellectual means is such that you're stationed somewhere significantly below 'insanity' on the intellectual ladder.

How sad for you. No wonder you people suffer such low self-esteem. Have you considered putting in some effort?

A lot of folks use it and it really seems to work!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you will accept NOTHING as fact you cant USE facts.

if this one is fact than you have to accept your fucking party has cheated in elections for decades

The SCOTUS agrees

So are you suggesting that a party ... In the case of the "Consent Decree" the Republican party ... "Has cheated for decades" because the Supreme Court dismissed hearing a case that would remove a measure that has supposedly eliminated cheating for the last 3 decades?
You need to get your interpretation of the facts straight ... It either works or it doesn't ... Make up your mind please.

.

Such profound patience with foolishness. I cut that individual from the list inside of two posts.

IMHO, they lack any potential for ever being able to negotiate even these simple equations.

IOW: They're helpless and as such: HOPELESS. In the natural world, individuals such the individual to which you respond above, are known as "FOOD"!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Guilt or commonalities assessed through association?

You imply that association with and advancement of common reasoning, can't be used as a reasonable means of 'profiling', and/or that assessing one's associations and the adherence and public advocacy of common beliefs does not reasonably stand to count them as a member of a given group.

Can you explain how your position could be justified as something akin to reasonable?

(Oh MAN! Now I'm all tingly with anticipation.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ladies and gentlemen of the US Message Board, I present to you, for your entertainment pleasure, an abyss of ignorance. Please give a BIG USMB WELCOME to the wholly irrational, intellectually addled Relativist Jakewhatshisname, touting a tried and true relic of invalid reasoning:

The "Nuh-huh" defense.

​

Hetero-fascistic babble.

We can read SCOTUS for ourselves and understand Where_ is babbling.

"It doesn't change the FACT that Marriage is the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WO-MAN" or ONE MAN and ONE Man or ONE WO-MAN and ONE WO-MAN.

LOL even newcomers know jake is a lying fool

Yes... I wanted to give him a big send out, cause he's tried SO HARD! But unfortunately Jake didn't make the intellectual cut. He has a lot of heart, but he just doesn't have the intellectual means to acquire the skills that would provide for his contributions to be worthy of consideration. So I've had to cut him from the line up. (He rode poor old Barb like a rented mule last night.) It was embarrassing to watch. I felt bad for both of 'em. Particularly Barb.
I had hopes that in the light of day he'd improve, but, sadly, it got worse. Turns out that he's a mimic too and they're just sad.

They literally contest that which they feel, in their own mind, is winning the argument, so instead of changing their point of view to reflect the superior reasoning, they mimic the style of the purveyor of such, erroneously feeling that THAT represents the weight of the argument.

But in short, yes. They're idiots.

Where_ can't carry an argument at all (no, natural law does not cut it, bub, does it?), so he resorts to ad hom. What he does not know that many of us made the grade here by combatting those who are really good at the negative arts for years and years. Where_ does not have the art at all.

Where_, old buddy, you are a noob, and fun to toy with but you won't have the ability and stamina to stay around for long.

Watch.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, when civil rights are violated I support the judicial over-ruling the "will of the people" (see also tyranny of the majority).

Like here in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia. I agree with the court's decision in that case despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary.

See where public opinion was in 1967? Do you see where "the will of the people" would have allowed blacks to marry whites?

When the "will of the people" violates the US Constitution, it is the job of the judicial to rule. See Heller if you're curious how it works.

What civil right is being violated?

Do you have a right to change the standard established by nature, to sustain a viable culture?

What are your sustaining responsibilities intrinsic to this right?

You must be one MIGHTY IMPORTANT PERSON!

Does this in any way, relate to your behaving in a way that deviates from the biological standard?

How does your demand that the entire society pretend that your sexual abnormality is normal, sum to you being denied that which you are rightfully entitled?

Please BE SPECIFIC.

Equal treatment under the law.

Seriously...how can you ask that question when Federal Court after Federal Court is finding that anti gay marriage laws violate the Constitution?

Marriage is a fundamental right. The fundamental right to marry the consenting adult of our choice is being denied to gays and lesbians in some states. Over 40% of the country, however, currently correctly applies the 14th Amendment to include it's gay and lesbian citizens. (and growing rapidly)

So, where are homosexuals being treated inequitably?

Are Sexually-normal males and females being accepted for marriage somewhere?

I'm not aware of it happening, but if you've some skinny to which I'm not privy, SPILL!

Marriage IS a fundamental right. That's true. It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES.

It's like this: I have a natural right to speak freely in public. That right is sustained by my bearing the RESPONSIBILITY TO RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH HOLDS THAT I DO NOT EXERCISE MY RIGHT, TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER INNOCENT TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN RIGHTS.

When you, as a homosexual, demand that the FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS OF MY CULTURE BE LOWERED TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF, YOU INJURE MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT, to the extent possible discourages abnormality from being promoted by tiny, but otherwise MOUTHY minorities of hormonally malfunctioning cranks and their close friends and family, who love them as any reasonable friend or family member would and doesn't enjoy seeing them all sad because they're abnormal and as such can't marry 'Uncle Fred' and 'Aunt Jane'. So we dismiss the understandably supportive familial core along with the understandably sad cadre of hormonally malfunctioning cranks and move on.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that I'm a mean person, because I haven't stood up and applauded you for being all fucked up and proud, further joining your movement to wreck the nuclear core of the culture.

But you need to know that as a person, I find your to be pleasant enough, even likable.

But I am a person with at least the minimum threshold of common sense, sufficient to recognize that changing societal standards is a VERY SERIOUS thing, which requires serious consideration, sober, objective reasoning and as such axiomatically invalidates adherents to relativism from participation, as you folks are simply incapable of objective consideration of anything, let alone a policy which is DESIGNED TO DEAL YOU OUT, and FOR SOUNDLY REASONED PURPOSES, which I'd go into, but if I did, I fear you'd think me even meaner than ya already do and I've grown so fond of you that I hate to risk it.

​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wanting to have sex with a member of another race is a behavior. Were they born with that behavior to want to have sex with someone of another race or did they choose it?

There's nothing preventing you from getting married legally.

Just find a person of the opposite gender and apply for a license. Fill it out. It's automatically approved, then you find a person who is licensed to marry folks and PRESTO! You are legally married.

(Notice folks, that this is the end of the line for her most recent deceitful rationalization, because if she responds to this point, her only option is to discuss what she claims is a private matter, IN PUBLIC.)

Don't you agree SW?

There was nothing preventing individuals from getting married legally under interracial bans.

Just find a person of the same race and apply for a license. Fill it out. It was automatically approved, then they find a person who was licensed to marry folks and PRESTO! They were legally married.

Don't you agree WRMK?


>>>>

I see. So because the reasoning which you've come to contest, was invalid where the issue at contest was racial, circumstance which in NO WAY was even REMOTELY RELEVANT to the biological standard, which stands as the FOUNDATIONAL CORE of the Marriage Standard, you feel that despite the argument being SPOT ON in PERFECT relevance, now, that it should still fail?

Do you understand that what you're saying is that they let the blacks in, so they gotta let the homos in too?

And do you further understand that in so claiming, you are in effect arguing that there should be no standard to represent the nuclear core of the culture?

And from there, do you understand that such a position is the very definition of foolishness?

I hope you will make the effort to respond in defense of your fatally flawed and now thoroughly discredited point of view. I'd be very interested in your response.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When you, as a homosexual, demand that the FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS OF MY CULTURE BE LOWERED TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF, YOU INJURE MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT, to the extent possible discourages abnormality from being promoted…

This failed reasoning has been rejected by the courts when the states have attempted to use it to justify denying gay Americans their civil liberties:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice…

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

That society has historically, traditionally, or culturally sought to disadvantage gay Americans, or to perceive homosexuality as ‘abnormal,’ is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – it has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples’ 14th Amendment right to access marriage law, and in no way supports the state’s desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Marriage IS a fundamental right. That's true. It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES."

The appeal to natural law fails. The Constitution determines the appropriate standard.

 

[beagle9]

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?

Yes, when civil rights are violated I support the judicial over-ruling the "will of the people" (see also tyranny of the majority).

Like here in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia. I agree with the court's decision in that case despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary.

See where public opinion was in 1967? Do you see where "the will of the people" would have allowed blacks to marry whites?

When the "will of the people" violates the US Constitution, it is the job of the judicial to rule. See Heller if you're curious how it works.

Ok, but then does every issue work as if they have the same connections, or the same premise and/or the same case studies somehow being connected like they are attempted to be connected ? I think not, but the joining of these cases together over the past years has been a tactic (IMHO), and it is being done or it has been done for unsavory reasoning in many respects.

People are seeing this by what has transpired over time in this nation now. Many issues don't even connect at all in the ways that they are being connected in these cases or case studies like they are, but they are being connected in an attempt to use the power of one specific case, to then push through something else even if it isn't connected or shouldn't be connected in that way at all.

Those who think that the people in this nation don't see what is going on in these things, well they are wrong, because in fact they very much do see how this is working out, and how it has been working now, and they don't like it because they feel they are losing ground instead of sharing ground.

I guess in some of these cases, it needs to return to what the people want as a majority on some of the issues, and this I think they want for their families, their children, and their beliefs as a majority on some of the specific issues in which do affect them in their life or lives.

I think if they don't get what they (the majority) might want in some of these cases soon, then they may turn on the rulers who ruled against their will as a majority people on some specific issues, and so they may be looking for a job sooner than later if it swings against them to much more in some of these cases that are being looked at or reviewed by the majority now.

 

[beagle9]

"Marriage IS a fundamental right. That's true. It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES."

The appeal to natural law fails. The Constitution determines the appropriate standard.

What does the constitution say is the appropriate standard then ?

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times


glad to see some of you at least accept SOME scotus decisions.

but only the ones you seem to like huh assholes

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Marriage IS a fundamental right. That's true. It is a RIGHT which is sustained by bearing the responsibility to RISE TO THE STANDARD WHICH NATURE PRESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THE SPECIES."

The appeal to natural law fails. The Constitution determines the appropriate standard.

What does the constitution say is the appropriate standard then ?

Thank you. SCOTUS opines what the standard is, and that Court along with the federal judiciary have given solid indications what the stand is going to be, don't you think so?

 

[Truthmatters]

they will not try to make gay marriage illegal.


they also will NOT help the republican party cheat