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

[Seawytch]

A small group in SF who like "a 'civil rights icon' who buggered orphaned teen boys on drugs as his 'sexual preference = gay' is not indicative of a cult. If you have a problem with his role in the text books, then go for it with state board authorities.



You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of therapy laws in California.



You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of actualizing one's identity, whether sexually or religiously.



You are trying to create a cult to indoctrinate a hatred of LGBT.



Thank you for being respectful in your dialogue.

Jake, my friend...

 

[Silhouette]

That's only part of the post Seawytch, here's the whole thing in context:

A small group in SF who like "a 'civil rights icon' who buggered orphaned teen boys on drugs as his 'sexual preference = gay' is not indicative of a cult. If you have a problem with his role in the text books, then go for it with state board authorities.

You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of therapy laws in California.

You are not qualified to make any professional evaluation of actualizing one's identity, whether sexually or religiously.

You are trying to create a cult to indoctrinate a hatred of LGBT.

Thank you for being respectful in your dialogue.

Just one reply to that comment:

That stamp wasn't minted in San Francisco CA. It is a United States postage commemorative stamp. Note the rainbow "USA" at the top.

Oopsies..

And I am qualified to say that not allowing free speech between a therapist and his minor client who wants to change his orientation from what he was molested [tampered] to be, is draconian and machiavellian. I can call out indoctrinization when I see it. I got an A+ in college psychology, a 4.5. It was one of the highest grades the professor ever gave a student in bonehead psych. I may not have a degree, but I have a brain and eyes and have read the laws on child endangerment.

I've read about cults. I see the correlations between them and the church of LGBT, their messiah, their blind defense of their messiah even when confronted with the facts of his sexual crimes against minors and teens on drugs. So, I am qualified. And so is any other reader who has half a wit in their head..

Here's the group taking credit for pushing for the Harvey Milk stamp: [From LGBT Weekly]
U.S. Postal Service to issue Harvey Milk stamp in 2014 | LGBT Weekly

The group claims that it is behind a nationwide campaign for 68 chapters across the US, Mexico and Canada to promote the Harvey Milk stamp as a crowning achievement of their group.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But the Church of Silohuette is being respectful if absolutely weirded out.

 

[Silhouette]

But the Church of Silohuette is being respectful if absolutely weirded out.

So then you're saying it's one church against another?

My money in Utah then is on the Church of Latter Day Saints prevailing against the church/cult of Harvey Milk...

 

[beagle9]

Jake knows that social factors and especially childrens' welfare WILL influence SCOTUS. It's why gay lawyers played on the heartstrings of the Justices last year to a noted response in the positive from at least one of them.

If child welfare turns the heads of the Justices around, they need to read this again:

Once again you are purposefully missing the point. When a hetero perv molests a girl, he isn't elevated to icon status. In fact, he's put into protective custody for a reason. The general hetero population would be a threat to his life. It speaks volumes about the general hetero population's feelings about child molestors.

Then there is the cult of Harvey Milk. They know what he did and elevated him as their cultural icon. Adding insult to injury to the cause of protecting children, they require children as a matter of law to celebrate his sexuality in schools. They defend him to this day. There's the critical difference.

Get it? I know you do, you're just pretending not to, which is adding even more insult to injury...

SCOTUS is not concerned with those who argue as you do.

Why would they refuse to be concerned (as you think) with all arguments that are placed on the table ? Is the SCOTUS one sided in their view or are they biased or paid off and/or intimidated to consider all opinions or arguments and their validity ? Wouldn't this make the SCOTUS corrupted if they are like you say ? Have their chickens finally come home to roost, and they know not what or how to deal with them ? I mean they have been there for along time, so could what they have created in the nation be a direct consequence of their dabbling in social experimentations or activism against the well wishes of the majority of citizens, and upon their thinking upon the multiple matters or issues in which have been brought before them now, and/or in the past ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

But the Church of Silohuette is being respectful if absolutely weirded out.

So then you're saying it's one church against another?

My money in Utah then is on the Church of Latter Day Saints prevailing against the church/cult of Harvey Milk...

You are saying that, I am being facetious.

Civil liberties will win out while the LDS Church and the State of Utah will lose, yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake knows that social factors and especially childrens' welfare WILL influence SCOTUS. It's why gay lawyers played on the heartstrings of the Justices last year to a noted response in the positive from at least one of them.

If child welfare turns the heads of the Justices around, they need to read this again:

SCOTUS is not concerned with those who argue as you do.

Why would they refuse to be concerned (as you think) with all arguments that are placed on the table ? Is the SCOTUS one sided in their view or are they biased or paid off and/or intimidated to consider all opinions or arguments and their validity ? Wouldn't this make the SCOTUS corrupted if they are like you say ? Have their chickens finally come home to roost, and they know not what or how to deal with them ? I mean they have been there for along time, so could what they have created in the nation be a direct consequence of their dabbling in social experimentations or activism against the well wishes of the majority of citizens, and upon their thinking upon the multiple matters or issues in which have been brought before them now, and/or in the past ?

Because SCOTUS can only opine on the law in relation to the Constitution and case law and statues.

Cult theory is only theory, like ID or Creationism or whatever: no bearing.

No, this is not social experimentation but only about civil liberties.

Constitutional liberties cannot be checked by Jacksonian majority rule.

 

[Silhouette]

Cult theory is only theory, like ID or Creationism or whatever: no bearing.

No, this is not social experimentation but only about civil liberties.

Constitutional liberties cannot be checked by Jacksonian majority rule.

The first sentence is the premise to your following two. If the premise fails in the first sentence then your conclusions in the other two fail as well.

That LGBT even MAY be a cult is enough to make legal argument to collapse the following two conclusions. A cult has no business nearing orphaned kids when their messiah was known for and celebrated for his sexual crimes against orphaned teens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cult theory is only theory, like ID or Creationism or whatever: no bearing.

No, this is not social experimentation but only about civil liberties.

Constitutional liberties cannot be checked by Jacksonian majority rule.

The first sentence is the premise to your following two. If the premise fails in the first sentence then your conclusions in the other two fail as well.

That LGBT even MAY be a cult is enough to make legal argument to collapse the following two conclusions. A cult has no business nearing orphaned kids when their messiah was known for and celebrated for his sexual crimes against orphaned teens.

Your premise is that "LGBT even MAY be a cult" means nothing.

The issue of marriage equality is about civil liberties and the Constitution.

Child abuse is criminalization of behavior and dealt with criminal law.

You got nothing.

 

[beagle9]

Cult theory is only theory, like ID or Creationism or whatever: no bearing.

No, this is not social experimentation but only about civil liberties.

Constitutional liberties cannot be checked by Jacksonian majority rule.

The first sentence is the premise to your following two. If the premise fails in the first sentence then your conclusions in the other two fail as well.

That LGBT even MAY be a cult is enough to make legal argument to collapse the following two conclusions. A cult has no business nearing orphaned kids when their messiah was known for and celebrated for his sexual crimes against orphaned teens.

Your premise is that "LGBT even MAY be a cult" means nothing.

The issue of marriage equality is about civil liberties and the Constitution.

Child abuse is criminalization of behavior and dealt with criminal law.

You got nothing.

I'll ask you this then Jake, are all matters according to you, and for which are being based upon this erroneous myth of blanket "equality" across the board a good thing ? Should it be brought upon every issue that is brought to court as being a good thing ? Such a tactic is being used so much now, and in a wild and wooly way anymore, that it isn't even funny now a days. Isn't this equality thing being used so loosely now, and all across the board like it is these days ummm a very bad thing ??

This ideology is where the devil exploits such weakness in thought almost every time now.

 

[Seawytch]

The first sentence is the premise to your following two. If the premise fails in the first sentence then your conclusions in the other two fail as well.

That LGBT even MAY be a cult is enough to make legal argument to collapse the following two conclusions. A cult has no business nearing orphaned kids when their messiah was known for and celebrated for his sexual crimes against orphaned teens.

Your premise is that "LGBT even MAY be a cult" means nothing.

The issue of marriage equality is about civil liberties and the Constitution.

Child abuse is criminalization of behavior and dealt with criminal law.

You got nothing.

I'll ask you this then Jake, are all matters according to you, and for which are being based upon this erroneous myth of blanket "equality" across the board a good thing ? Should it be brought upon every issue that is brought to court as being a good thing ? Such a tactic is being used so much now, and in a wild and wooly way anymore, that it isn't even funny now a days. Isn't this equality thing being used so loosely now, and all across the board like it is these days ummm a very bad thing ??

This ideology is where the devil exploits such weakness in thought almost every time now.

Right, because if we allow consenting adult gays to have equal rights, then it naturally follows that we soon must allow people to marry their refrigerators.

 

[Silhouette]

Right, because if we allow consenting adult gays to have equal rights, then it naturally follows that we soon must allow people to marry their refrigerators.

No, more specifically, if we allow consenting adults to have equal privelege [marriage is not a right] in marriage, then soon, immediately almost, we must allow polygamists to marry in Utah.

Try not to forget the topic title here Seawytch. Utah vs Harvey Milkers is what's on board. Not Utah vs a refrigerator fetish cult. It's the other cult, remember?

 

[Seawytch]

Right, because if we allow consenting adult gays to have equal rights, then it naturally follows that we soon must allow people to marry their refrigerators.

No, more specifically, if we allow consenting adults to have equal privelege [marriage is not a right] in marriage, then soon, immediately almost, we must allow polygamists to marry in Utah.



Try not to forget the topic title here Seawytch. Utah vs Harvey Milkers is what's on board. Not Utah vs a refrigerator fetish cult. It's the other cult, remember?

Marriage is a fundamental right as declared by the SCOTUS (more than once).

No, we don't have to allow polygamists to marry simply because gays can marry. Good luck trying though...and if it works, I may have to start looking for a sister wife.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is struggling now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The first sentence is the premise to your following two. If the premise fails in the first sentence then your conclusions in the other two fail as well.

That LGBT even MAY be a cult is enough to make legal argument to collapse the following two conclusions. A cult has no business nearing orphaned kids when their messiah was known for and celebrated for his sexual crimes against orphaned teens.

Your premise is that "LGBT even MAY be a cult" means nothing.

The issue of marriage equality is about civil liberties and the Constitution.

Child abuse is criminalization of behavior and dealt with criminal law.

You got nothing.

I'll ask you this then Jake, are all matters according to you, and for which are being based upon this erroneous myth of blanket "equality" across the board a good thing ? Should it be brought upon every issue that is brought to court as being a good thing ? Such a tactic is being used so much now, and in a wild and wooly way anymore, that it isn't even funny now a days. Isn't this equality thing being used so loosely now, and all across the board like it is these days ummm a very bad thing ??

This ideology is where the devil exploits such weakness in thought almost every time now.

I believe in personal liberty and freedom, and SCOTUS has opined that marriage is a civil liberty. Thus marriage equality is a good thing.

You will have to define what is "wild and wooly".

The matter is this: in no way form or fashion does marriage equality affect the religious and civil liberties of any citizen.

 

[Silhouette]

The matter is this: in no way form or fashion does marriage equality affect the religious and civil liberties of any citizen.

Except the mandates in Jude I, Romans I of the Bible and Poets 26 of the Koran which discuss how anyone who even enables a culture to be overtaken by homosexuality [Sodom] will be destroyed along with the culture itself. Sent to hell to burn in the eternal Pit of Fire.

So yeah, gay marriage does infringe on 1st Amendment rights. And it also infringes on the welfare of adoptable orphans. [See my signature]. A cult that worships a messiah who stood for buggering orphaned teen boys on drugs has no business gaining access to adoptable orphans through marriage. For as soon as you grant them marriage, they immediately "cannot be discriminated against" when going to adopt.

Read about their messiah. Read well. Remember: these are the values advancing at our nation's most vulnerable children. Imagine being an orphaned child today, the dangers that are right on your doorstep with only the thinnest of legal lines between you and that danger..

 

[Kondor3]

Hasn't this thread burned itself out, yet?

Why aren't I surprised?

 

[JakeStarkey]

News Flash: We the People decided our charter of governance is not misinterpreted scripture, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

News Flash: Your Sig indicates that marriage does give homosexual and heterosexual marriage predominance in adoption, which does mean that certain adults of both groups will prey children. This always has been so, hasn't, for much long in heterosexual marriages.

The way to resolve your concern is to make sure that LEO is pro-actively searching for the David Koreshes, the Warren Jeffs, the Harvey Milks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hasn't this thread burned itself out, yet?

Why aren't I surprised?

Because a number of us will not let Sil have the last word, and because as long as she hangs in here, she will be civil.

 

[Silhouette]

News Flash: We the People decided our charter of governance is not misinterpreted scripture, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

Newsflash: The People decided in Utah in 2/3rds majority to not allow gay marriage in their state's boundaries. Glad to see you agree with the "We the People" decision Jake.. Or is it that "We the People" can only apply to advancing the interests of the cult of LGBT but not the interests of an organized religion like christianity?

There is no "misinterpretation" in scripture. In Jude I, Romans I of the Bible, you are damned to hell for eternity for even not earnestly contending for the common salvation when it comes to staving off homosexual takeover of the culture you find yourself in. Sodom was given as an example in the Jude I passage as representative to what will happen to other cultures if they follow suit. Eternal damnation is the punishment for failing to earnestly contend for the faith in this regard. Read Jude I. Read it. All of you reading here, read it.

To ask a christian to defy Jude I or Romans I is to ask them to submit to the eternal fires in the Pit of Hell. You cannot ask that of a christian. It is tantamount to banning religion officially in the US. For if the faithful are forced to commit mortal sin, they are forced to abandon their faith, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.