Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did you read the part about only married people get to adopt in Utah? Ponder that and the Harvey Milk issue as I lined out here.. Keywords "top tier" to be able to adopt. And, once married, non-discrimination. Without a clear definition of 'class' for LGBT people we have only their culture to rely on. Enter, their messiah Harvey Milk and his child sex offenses defended by the LGBT culture.>
Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
Anyone find Harvey Milk mentioned?
>>>>
Yes, in a manner of speaking:
So no.
Thanks
>>>>
Did you read the part about only married people get to adopt in Utah? Ponder that and the Harvey Milk issue as I lined out here.. Keywords "top tier" to be able to adopt. And, once married, non-discrimination. Without a clear definition of 'class' for LGBT people we have only their culture to rely on. Enter, their messiah Harvey Milk and his child sex offenses defended by the LGBT culture.
Problem city at the adoption agency, friend.
Ok, but do you think that he shouldn't be mentioned, and why do you think that ? Is he fair game in such a legal battle, and this because of what Sil & others have been making their very thoughtful case about ?Sigh. Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
Should he be mentioned ? Tell me watcher, just what do you think ?>
Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
Anyone find Harvey Milk mentioned?
>>>>
Ok, but do you think that he shouldn't be mentioned, and why do you think that ? Is he fair game in such a legal battle, and this because of what Sil & others have been making their very thoughtful case about ?Sigh. Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
Should he be mentioned ? Tell me watcher, just what do you think ?>
Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
Anyone find Harvey Milk mentioned?
>>>>
You still didn't give your opinion on whether he should be mentioned or not.. What say you ?Ok, but do you think that he shouldn't be mentioned, and why do you think that ? Is he fair game in such a legal battle, and this because of what Sil & others have been making their very thoughtful case about ?Sigh. Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
(1) Sil has created a strawman and then knocked it down: the Church of LGBT. Milk is irrelevant to the Utah's appeal.
(2) Where_r_My_Keys was arguing that Natural Law (though he would not admit it because he would have got smacked with Holmes' discussion) instead of the Constitution
(3) Schaar, the lead attorney of Utah's team, has stated clearly that "the best interest of the children" is what they will argue and that will not litigate on homosexual marriage at all
You still didn't give your opinion on whether he should be mentioned or not.. What say you ?Ok, but do you think that he shouldn't be mentioned, and why do you think that ? Is he fair game in such a legal battle, and this because of what Sil & others have been making their very thoughtful case about ?
(1) Sil has created a strawman and then knocked it down: the Church of LGBT. Milk is irrelevant to the Utah's appeal.
(2) Where_r_My_Keys was arguing that Natural Law (though he would not admit it because he would have got smacked with Holmes' discussion) instead of the Constitution
(3) Schaar, the lead attorney of Utah's team, has stated clearly that "the best interest of the children" is what they will argue and that will not litigate on homosexual marriage at all
So you think that he shouldn't be mentioned if he could be mentioned in the case ? Like Sil says, they have elevated him to icon status, even made a U.S. Stamp for him. Now are they just the same as or just like the Muslims in the case of extremism, where as will they separate themselves from this cat or do they say nothing and become aids or enablers instead of a people whom disagree, whether it be with Muslim extremism on the part of the Muslims to either agree or disagree or with the Gay's on the part of this Harvey Milk worshipping based on the accepting of in which she has pointed out here ?Should he be mentioned ? Tell me watcher, just what do you think ?>
Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
Anyone find Harvey Milk mentioned?
>>>>
I'm not the one that has been making post after post in thread after thread that the case is "Harvey Milk v. Utah" and that Milk will be the focus of the case.
Harvey Milk is totally irrelevant to the issue.
The reason that Sil keeps harping on Harvey Milk is classic (depending on your perspective) "Poison the well fallacy" or an attempt at the "broad brush fallacy", take your pick depending on perspective.
Poison the Well is based on the use of Milk as an attempt to poison the discussion about consenting adults because Milk may have had sex with a minor. Kind of like thinking no females should be teachers because Mary Letourneau had sex with an underage student.
Broad Brush fallacy because the intent to to paint consenting adult homosexuals as being the same has Harvey Milk.
If the argument was tied in court the individual would be laughed out of the proceedings. The AG's office was smart enough to know this and you will not find Milk mentioned in the States brief.
>>>>
Why yes, and you think not maybe ? And if he did then he should be watered down as to his impact or contributions in which he made, because who wants to think anything good of such a man if did what you said ?You still didn't give your opinion on whether he should be mentioned or not.. What say you ?(1) Sil has created a strawman and then knocked it down: the Church of LGBT. Milk is irrelevant to the Utah's appeal.
(2) Where_r_My_Keys was arguing that Natural Law (though he would not admit it because he would have got smacked with Holmes' discussion) instead of the Constitution
(3) Schaar, the lead attorney of Utah's team, has stated clearly that "the best interest of the children" is what they will argue and that will not litigate on homosexual marriage at all
The reason nobody is answering your ridiculous question is because...well, it's ridiculous.
I just read an announcement about a town choosing their poet laureate. Do you think they should bring up the fact that Edgar Allen Poe slept with his severely underage cousin?
Why yes, and you think not maybe ? And if he did then he should be watered down as to his impact or contributions in which he made, because who wants to think anything good of such a man if did what you said ?You still didn't give your opinion on whether he should be mentioned or not.. What say you ?
The reason nobody is answering your ridiculous question is because...well, it's ridiculous.
I just read an announcement about a town choosing their poet laureate. Do you think they should bring up the fact that Edgar Allen Poe slept with his severely underage cousin?
So you think that he shouldn't be mentioned if he could be mentioned in the case ? Like Sil says, they have elevated him to icon status, even made a U.S. Stamp for him. Now are they just the same as or just like the Muslims in the case of extremism, where as will they separate themselves from this cat or do they say nothing and become aids or enablers instead of a people whom disagree, whether it be with Muslim extremism on the part of the Muslims to either agree or disagree or with the Gay's on the part of this Harvey Milk worshipping based on the accepting of in which she has pointed out here ?Should he be mentioned ? Tell me watcher, just what do you think ?
I'm not the one that has been making post after post in thread after thread that the case is "Harvey Milk v. Utah" and that Milk will be the focus of the case.
Harvey Milk is totally irrelevant to the issue.
The reason that Sil keeps harping on Harvey Milk is classic (depending on your perspective) "Poison the well fallacy" or an attempt at the "broad brush fallacy", take your pick depending on perspective.
Poison the Well is based on the use of Milk as an attempt to poison the discussion about consenting adults because Milk may have had sex with a minor. Kind of like thinking no females should be teachers because Mary Letourneau had sex with an underage student.
Broad Brush fallacy because the intent to to paint consenting adult homosexuals as being the same has Harvey Milk.
If the argument was tied in court the individual would be laughed out of the proceedings. The AG's office was smart enough to know this and you will not find Milk mentioned in the States brief.
>>>>
Either you have a moral standing on these matters, issues or things (or) you do not, I mean it's just as simple as that really. Jerry Lewis is still the talk around town as are many others as well. They are the talk because of how he (in the matter you mentioned) did what he did, and people still don't see it as right and never will, but hollywood and the government over rides the people's thinking and/or views on such matters or things more so than ever now, and they have been doing this in the peoples face for quite sometime now.So you think that he shouldn't be mentioned if he could be mentioned in the case ? Like Sil says, they have elevated him to icon status, even made a U.S. Stamp for him. Now are they just the same as or just like the Muslims in the case of extremism, where as will they separate themselves from this cat or do they say nothing and become aids or enablers instead of a people whom disagree, whether it be with Muslim extremism on the part of the Muslims to either agree or disagree or with the Gay's on the part of this Harvey Milk worshipping based on the accepting of in which she has pointed out here ?I'm not the one that has been making post after post in thread after thread that the case is "Harvey Milk v. Utah" and that Milk will be the focus of the case.
Harvey Milk is totally irrelevant to the issue.
The reason that Sil keeps harping on Harvey Milk is classic (depending on your perspective) "Poison the well fallacy" or an attempt at the "broad brush fallacy", take your pick depending on perspective.
Poison the Well is based on the use of Milk as an attempt to poison the discussion about consenting adults because Milk may have had sex with a minor. Kind of like thinking no females should be teachers because Mary Letourneau had sex with an underage student.
Broad Brush fallacy because the intent to to paint consenting adult homosexuals as being the same has Harvey Milk.
If the argument was tied in court the individual would be laughed out of the proceedings. The AG's office was smart enough to know this and you will not find Milk mentioned in the States brief.
>>>>
Harvey Milk is an individual, who in my opinion should have been arrested and charged with sex with a minor. However a politician from four decades ago who liked younger boys has no bearing what-so-ever on whether two consenting adults should be treated equally under the law because there is no valid government interest in promoting invidious and capricious laws which target them for discrimination.
Her "Milk" this and "Milk" that is nothing more than a logical fallacy used to try to poison - what otherwise - can be an open and honest discussion.
It would be like saying the because Jerry Lee Lewis had sex with his 13-year old first cousin that all heterosexual should be banned from married because an older man (he was in his 20's at the time) had sex with a 13 year old girl and because he back an icon of society and even inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame.
Neither makes any sense and has no bearing on a discussion about consenting adults.
>>>>
Tell me what a poet what ever you mentioned is, and I will answer you with the same moral standing again in which I use on every other question, issue and/or opinion upon which is given here. Now don't try and deflect with something that may be a side issue to what is being spoken about here in context of, but do teach me something upon your point being made if you will. I am always one for learning something new in life.Why yes, and you think not maybe ? And if he did then he should be watered down as to his impact or contributions in which he made, because who wants to think anything good of such a man if did what you said ?The reason nobody is answering your ridiculous question is because...well, it's ridiculous.
I just read an announcement about a town choosing their poet laureate. Do you think they should bring up the fact that Edgar Allen Poe slept with his severely underage cousin?
Neither Edgar Allen Poe's nor Harvey Milk's contributions to society or poetry have anything to do with marriage equality so the question is, why do you harp on it as though it does?
Do you know what a Poet Laureate is?
The reason nobody is answering your ridiculous question is because...well, it's ridiculous.
I just read an announcement about a town choosing their poet laureate. Do you think they should bring up the fact that Edgar Allen Poe slept with his severely underage cousin?
You don't know what I wish, but it is my thoughts that you wish you did. I am just giving Sil a listen to, and a fair shake at her findings and linking's upon such things that she has found in her studies. Everyone else ought to be doing the same, but due to their personal biases, associations or actual lifestyles lived in life, they can't see the forest for the tree's anymore. This is based upon anything that is said now or is being based upon facts and statistics, or even upon the majority's view's upon what is being debated and/or conversed about in these forums. People should keep an open mind on the issues coming in from both directions as is being looked at, but you see how that is very hard for some to do in life. Consideration is becoming a far and outdated thing in todays society now, and it is being replaced with pure unadulterated intolerance of any other views instead.Neither the Bible nor Natural Law has anything, beagle9, to do with this case.
I know you wish it did.
Does ANYONE getting married to who they choose, now cause smaller government or bigger government to happen as a result of ? Now that is a question to be pondered now isn't it ?If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?
