Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That

[hipeter924]

Listen Hipster, you don't get to tell me a thing.

You have ZERO credibility. Youre the one saying you can be all of those at once & not be a hypocrite. Not me, hypocrite.

If being a homophobic git makes you 'credible' on this forum, then it isn't worth anything. A thousand negs are better than being a collectivist drone, who runs after popularity and favor from his GOP minders.

 

[Bush92]

I think some people are born with those tendencies. If they turn to the dark side I want them to keep it to themselves. Like Reagan said, "As long as you leave the kids and the animals alone...what you do in private is up to you." Note the word "PRIVATE."

 

[Silhouette]

I think some people are born with those tendencies. If they turn to the dark side I want them to keep it to themselves. Like Reagan said, "As long as you leave the kids and the animals alone...what you do in private is up to you." Note the word "PRIVATE."

Nah. Not the case. Deviant sexual orientations are learned behaviors. Read the OP again.

And...We are back to arguing gays as a race, it's a vicious cycle I tell ya.

What race are gays now? They usually come in all races, from what I gather.

Are they from another planet or something?

Worldwatcher is a lawyer or a legal type I can guarantee you. It's the way he posts. He knows very well, therefore, that if he doesn't try to argue the cult of LGBT from "race" perspective, their collective goose is cooked. He knows my argument is diamond-solid about the SCOTUS not being able to [even if they wanted to] set a precedent for an incomplete grouping of a minority behavioral ilk dictating to the majority who disapproves of that behavior. He knows it cannot thereafter legally stop with "just" LGBT behaviors. Others would have their day in court based on that precedent. And that precedent would dissolve American law at its foundation.

So yes, he's back at it trying to compare guys who use other guy's anuses as artificial vaginas as = black people. If I was a black person I'd be hugely insulted by that BTW. He'd have more luck comparing them to a religion, because a cult is factually what LGBT is. They evangelize aggressively and punish heretics just as aggressively. And they've even succeeding in making laws in two states where once inducted by force [molestation imprinting], a minor, of their own volition and choice, cannot access therapy to change the damage until it's too late [18] and the behavior is hopelessly ingrained... Their messiah was a minor-teen sex predator. They should apply for federal recognition...

 

[LockeJaw]

Listen Hipster, you don't get to tell me a thing.

You have ZERO credibility. Youre the one saying you can be all of those at once & not be a hypocrite. Not me, hypocrite.

If being a homophobic git makes you 'credible' on this forum, then it isn't worth anything. A thousand negs are better than being a collectivist drone, who runs after popularity and favor from his GOP minders.

Anarchocommunistcapitalistdemocraticsocialistgreenpartymember!

Try to say that 3 times fast!

 

[Pop23]

Same bigots, different day:

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.​

See, they said that because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, that it was not discrimination...like you're doing now with gays.

Nothing new under the sun.

Gays can marry straights and straights can marry gays, just not of the same sex.
Your argument fails.

Could blacks marry blacks and whites marry whites?


Could not both races marry?



>>>>

Regardless of the red herring, whether black, white, red, yellow, short, tall, fat or skinny, the couples all functioned in the same manner and with the same group dynamic.

This is not true, nor can it ever be true until a same sex couple ever conceives a child within that couple.

 

[LockeJaw]

As A black man, I am insulted by it. And have expressed that here enough times...they don't care.

 

[LockeJaw]

Gay normalization will lead to this on a massive scale:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti7k_xOomXE&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Cultural Marxism A CIS Story - YouTube[/ame]


No thank you. It's a tie between the Quadro-Sexual in the cape & the tranny dude asking women to "define my body" on ridiculousness!

 

[LockeJaw]

Seawytch(in the hat & tank top) handled herself rather well in that video, Id say!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays can marry straights and straights can marry gays, just not of the same sex.
Your argument fails.

Could blacks marry blacks and whites marry whites?


Could not both races marry?



>>>>

In order for them to be the same blacks marry white would be the same as gays marrying straights, not other gays.

That's because no laws are technically written in terms of straights or gays as the were with "colored" (the term used in the Virginia law) and "white", the text of the actual laws uses "man" and "woman" even though everyone knows the intent of the laws is to deny Civil Marriage to homosexuals.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And...We are back to arguing gays as a race, it's a vicious cycle I tell ya.

What race are gays now? They usually come in all races, from what I gather.

Are they from another planet or something?

No the argument isn't "gay" = "race".


The point is to show the faulty logic, the same logical argument the Commonwealth of Virginia used in Loving v. Virginia. An argument that didn't make sense then and the SCOTUS saw right through it.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Could blacks marry blacks and whites marry whites?


Could not both races marry?



>>>>

In order for them to be the same blacks marry white would be the same as gays marrying straights, not other gays.

That's because no laws are technically written in terms of straights or gays as the were with "colored" (the term used in the Virginia law) and "white", the text of the actual laws uses "man" and "woman" even though everyone knows the intent of the laws is to deny Civil Marriage to homosexuals.



>>>>

Another red herring. I know a number of homosexuals that have married members of the opposite sex.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Worldwatcher is a lawyer or a legal type I can guarantee you.

And you would add another thing to the list you have been wrong about.

I'm currently an Information System Administrator for an Enterprise level Oracle user and do setup work, data analysis, and system design functions for local database design.

Prior to that I was a Computer Technical Trainer for a few years.

And prior to that I spent 20 years in the Navy retiring as a Chief Aviation Electronics technician that not only maintained systems on the ground but functioned as a Naval Aircrewman in the signals intelligence field.




>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

There are no laws regarding hetero or homosexuals, yet there is a law written so that homosexuals can't get married? That makes no sense, WW.

The law never expected to have gay marriages, in all likelihood.

I think it's time to try to amend the constitution or aim for civil unions at this point.

Gays as a race just doesn't fly, atleast it shouldn't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In order for them to be the same blacks marry white would be the same as gays marrying straights, not other gays.

That's because no laws are technically written in terms of straights or gays as the were with "colored" (the term used in the Virginia law) and "white", the text of the actual laws uses "man" and "woman" even though everyone knows the intent of the laws is to deny Civil Marriage to homosexuals.



>>>>

Another red herring. I know a number of homosexuals that have married members of the opposite sex.

No that is the red herring Pops as the issue is Same-sex Civil Marriage - since they married someone of the opposite sex that is not part of the legal discussion.

Prior to the Loving decision there were plenty of blacks the married blacks and whites that married whites - those of course had nothing to do with a law that banned blacks from Civilly Marrying whites.



>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

So everybody should just be able to marry whoever they want I guess? I want the benefits of marriage(I am actually married), but I don't plan on ever having kids, my best friend doesn't either...we both are heterosexual..we should be allowed the same benefits as traditional marriage, right WW?

If not, how do you propose to keep straight people from abusing the system?

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are no laws regarding hetero or homosexuals, yet there is a law written so that homosexuals can't get married? That makes no sense, WW.

Come on LJ, you are smarter than that. You know full well the passage of Constitutional Amendments that banned Civil Marriages to members of the opposite sex was target for gays.

The law never expected to have gay marriages, in all likelihood.

So, take Virginia for example, the Constitution was amended in 2006 after Massachusetts allowed SSCM and much of the political discussion centered around the amendment was to deny BOTH Civil Marraige and Civil Unions to homosexuals.

All the ads and election materials to ban Civil Marriage to same sex couples and the law wasn't passed to ban same-sex couples?

That makes no sense.

I think it's time to try to amend the constitution...

Some in Congress have repeatedly over the last 10-15 years. There isn't much support for it.

or aim for civil unions at this point.

It's social authoritarians that slammed the door on that point. Gay's would have probably been fine with it, but then social authoritarians got amendments passed that banned BOTH Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.

Remember Referendum 71 in Washington State? Civil Union equal to Civil Marriage without the name, social authoritarians pitched a bitch and blocked the implementation of the law pending a vote to permanently strike it. Civil Union's with all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage without the name was to good for them.

Gays as a race just doesn't fly, atleast it shouldn't.

Never said gay was a race, that's just a meme. What has been pointed out is the structure of the argument is the same and that argument failed.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So everybody should just be able to marry whoever they want I guess?

Nope.

It would require the government to present a compelling government interest in preventing non-related consenting adults from establishing a legal next-of-kin status with another consenting adult.

I want the benefits of marriage(I am actually married), but I don't plan on ever having kids, my best friend doesn't either...we both are heterosexual..we should be allowed the same benefits as traditional marriage, right WW?

Not an argument I've ever made, so why try to put words in my mouth.

Usually it's the pro-discrimination side that says you aren't in a real marriage unless you procreate - not the side that want's to end discrimination against homosexuals for no compelling reason.

If not, how do you propose to keep straight people from abusing the system?

Straight people already "abuse" the system. I've known people that got married simply to qualify for military benefits (more pay and the ability to move off base), then there are those that use marriage as a means of trying to jump the line for immigration, straights also get married so that a friend who might be unemployed or under employed can qualify for health insurance through their "spouse" to help pay for expensive medical treatments.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

And...We are back to arguing gays as a race, it's a vicious cycle I tell ya.

What race are gays now? They usually come in all races, from what I gather.

Are they from another planet or something?

No the argument isn't "gay" = "race".


The point is to show the faulty logic, the same logical argument the Commonwealth of Virginia used in Loving v. Virginia. An argument that didn't make sense then and the SCOTUS saw right through it.


>>>>

So Worldwatcher, since you are -strategically clinging to your "gay=race" as to the 14th stance, for fear of being buried if gay=minority behavior, answer me a question or two would you?

1. Is the grouping of objectionable-to-the-majority sexually deviant behaviors-in-the-minority 'LGBT' complete?

2. If not, then which other sexually deviant behaviors-in-the-minority will also use the precedent? Or for that matter, what other just any behaviors-in-the-minority that the majority disagrees with will use the precedent?

3. If your reasons for disqualification are "because the majority disapproves" or "that [fill in minority behavior here] behavior is digusting, or wrong, or icky", then how it is that LGBT qualify? What, for instance, could be more "icky" than a man using another man's anus as an artificial vagina, facilitating the spread of one of our worst [& most expensive] health epidemics [HIV AIDS]?

4. And if we give just those behaviors legitimacy and special protection under the Constitution, and grant them the acme institution of social-endorsement [marriage], then what message are we sending to impressionable kids about that deadly type of behavior?

I can answer #4 for you with the new and alarming statistics from the CDC showing that just in the years gay marriage and gay media push has begun, the rate of new HIV cases in young teen boys and very young men has skyrockted; when ever before the rate remained steady.

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010.
Almost 60% of youth with HIV in the United States do not know they are infected....

... Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men* account for most new infections in the age group 13 to 24 ...

...New HIV Infectionsb Among Youth (Aged 13–24 Years)
•In 2010, youth made up 17% of the US population, but accounted for an estimated 26% (12,200) of all new HIV infections (47,500) in the United States.
•In 2010, young gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 19% (8,800) of all new HIV infections in the United States and 72% of new HIV infections among youth. These young men were the only age group that showed a significant increase in estimated new infections—22% from 2008 (7,200) through 2010 (8,800).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/

 

[WorldWatcher]

So Worldwatcher, since you are -strategically clinging to your "gay=race" as to the 14th stance,...

Since I've never claimed that "gay=race" I'll just stop right there. I've repeatedly stated that gay <> race, but that the structure of the arguments used 50 years ago is the same structure used today by many people.



>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

THis is a entirely different issue, since gays are a behavior group, not a racial group. Why don't you understand that it doesn't make sense to use interracial marriage as a reasoning for gay marriage? We know for a fact it is not a healthy lifestyle...tell us why the state should endorse it other than "because love". Do you not have a case unless you conflates gays with race?

http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/