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

[Silhouette]

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.



>>>>

Ok, so when the structure changes to "LGBT" cannot be granted special protection because they are behaviors the majority objects to"; [because once any arbitrarily-limited group of objectionable minority behaviors gets to dictate to the majority, others may follow], then you'll be willing to concede defeat?

Let me ask this another way: "What do you have when a minority of behaviors gets to control the majority of any country?" What type of government is that? [I'll give you a hint: "Deutschland im Yahren Neunzehnhundert und Dreisig"]

I won't put words in your mouth, I'll let you answer. And when you do, do NOT forget we are talking about behaviors.. Should the majority have to endure the rainbow-colored jackboots standing on the back of their necks?

 

[Pop23]

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.



>>>>

And by changing the law the function of the "couple" remained exactly the same. A homosexual marrying a straight leaves the function of the couple the same.

Is it the same with same sex? Absolutely not. Loving changed nothing within the functionality of the couple.

 

[LockeJaw]

The pro-gay media is already telling us to follow the gays example. This article from 2010 shows that the agenda is to breakdown the traditional family unit. It's a form of cultural terrorism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Yes, according to the NYT, we should follow these "happy & successful" "married" gay's examples and sleep around. Like we are too stupid to see how that has worked out for gays PERIOD...not good. It's a war on decency, the left is promoting degenerate culture, and we have a right to say NO!

 

[rdean]

Many right wingers don't personally know any gays. But that doesn't stop them from hating gays anyway.

 

[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.



>>>>

Ok, so when the structure changes to "LGBT" cannot be granted special protection because they are behaviors the majority objects to"; [because once any arbitrarily-limited group of objectionable minority behaviors gets to dictate to the majority, others may follow], then you'll be willing to concede defeat?

No because it, IMHO, it doesn't have anything to do with "behaviors". My yardstick is there a compelling government reason for treating similar groups the differently. In this case those like situated groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, not already with a family relationship, infertile, consenting, adults.

BTW - "behaviors" are/were already protected. Wanting to marry someone of the a different race is a behavior, that was protected. Colorado tried to target gays (in your book a "behavior") and their law was struck under the 14th.

Let me ask this another way: "What do you have when a minority of behaviors gets to control the majority of any country?" What type of government is that? [I'll give you a hint: "Deutschland im Yahren Neunzehnhundert und Dreisig"]

I will stand with you when gays try to limit different-sex couples from being able to Civilly Marry and forcing same-sex only marriage on the country.

BTW - I don't speak German and will not make the effort to look up that phrase.

I won't put words in your mouth, I'll let you answer. And when you do, do NOT forget we are talking about behaviors.. Should the majority have to endure the rainbow-colored jackboots standing on the back of their necks?

"Jackboots"? Drama Queen much?


*************************

My solution to the whole Civil Marriage debate isn't liked by the left or the right:

1. Government recognition of SSCM at the state and federal level. Since there is no compelling reason to deny gays other than some think it's "icky" and other claim it's against their religion.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and restore the property and association rights of private business owners to refuse service to any potential customer for any reasons be it race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, country of origin, marital status, veterans status, what ever.​

"All persons" then are treated equally by the government as required by the 14th and private businesses get to accept or reject customers based on whatever criteria they wish to use.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

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.





>>>>

Well...they saw right through it after it had been successfully used for 85 years.

 

[80zephyr]

Which remain constitutionally protected.

So you're saying that a legal precedent has been set that some [just some but not all] deviant sexual behaviors have ascended to equal status as "race" as applicable in protections from the US Constitution.

The next question that begs is which deviant sexual behaviors [or any other type of behavior for that matter] is exempt from these protections, and why, specifically? [Hint, you cannot use "because the majority finds them unacceptable" or "they're icky"]

I'll await your answer... At least you're not pretending anymore that deviant sexual behaviors known as "LGBT" aren't learned or behaviors. Why not just come out with that at the next court hearing on the next gay lawsuit? You don't have to answer that question. We already know the answer..

The mistake you make is to perceive homosexuality as a ‘deviant sexual behavior,’ which it is in fact not.

That you perceive it so as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is subjective and irrelevant.

In addition to your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans, you’re also disadvantaged by your comprehensive ignorance of the law, the levels of judicial review, the difference between a protected class of persons and a suspect class of persons, and that laws seeking to restrict the rights of a given class of persons are subject to a more or less stringent level of judicial review.

Race is not the sole criterion by which the state might seek to violate a citizen’s civil liberties, nor is race the sole justification for an adversely effected class of persons, such as gay Americans, to seek relief from that violation of rights in the Federal courts.

Yours is an old and failed canard invalidated by the Supreme Court in Romer, that as ‘deviants’ jurisdictions can violate the civil rights of gay Americans with impunity, that if gay Americans no longer wish to be subject to discriminatory measures they need only ‘stop being gay,’ and seek ‘help’ for their ‘mental illness.’

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The guarantee of liberty enshrined in the Fifth Amendment protects the right of each American, including gay Americans, to express himself as an individual, to define for oneself the meaning and purpose of his life, absent interference by the state.

Of course it is. Just the design of the human body will tell you that.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Because a majority gets to decide who rises to their acme of socially-acceptable marriage; and a minority of behaviors DO NOT.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that the got the Loving decision wrong in 1967 when they ruled in the Loving case that denying interracial Civil Marriage was unconstitutional. Blacks were not denied Civil Marriage and whites were not denied Civil Marriage - it was the behavior (i.e. interracial marriage) that was in question.



>>>>

The SCOTUS was correct in 1967. There is one difference, however. Race has nothing to do with marriage. Gender has everything to do with marriage.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And how were they being treated unequally? They had exactly the same rights as any of us.

Any willing and able man could marry any able and willing woman.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who is being discriminated against?

Mark

 

[WorldWatcher]

And how were they being treated unequally? They had exactly the same rights as any of us.

Any willing and able man could marry any able and willing woman.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who is being discriminated against?

Mark

And how were blacks treated differently? They had exactly the same rights as whites.

Any willing and able black person could marry any able and willing black person, in addition any willing and able white person could marry another white person.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who was being discriminated against?

Mark (Yes my first name is also Mark).




See the structure of the similarity in the structure of the argument used today against gays and the structure of the argument used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to justify laws against different races marrying?



>>>>

 

[Slyhunter]

And how were they being treated unequally? They had exactly the same rights as any of us.

Any willing and able man could marry any able and willing woman.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who is being discriminated against?

Mark

And how were blacks treated differently? They had exactly the same rights as whites.

Any willing and able black person could marry any able and willing black person, in addition any willing and able white person could marry another white person.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who was being discriminated against?

Mark (Yes my first name is also Mark).




See the structure of the similarity in the structure of the argument used today against gays and the structure of the argument used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to justify laws against different races marrying?



>>>>

Any black gay man can marry any female without regard to color. So your argument fails.
Gays have the same right to marry someone as the opposite sex as non gays.
Blacks can marry those of the opposite sex too.
So your example does not equate.

 

[Seawytch]

Because a majority gets to decide who rises to their acme of socially-acceptable marriage; and a minority of behaviors DO NOT.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that the got the Loving decision wrong in 1967 when they ruled in the Loving case that denying interracial Civil Marriage was unconstitutional. Blacks were not denied Civil Marriage and whites were not denied Civil Marriage - it was the behavior (i.e. interracial marriage) that was in question.







>>>>

The SCOTUS was correct in 1967. There is one difference, however. Race has nothing to do with marriage. Gender has everything to do with marriage.



Mark

18 states and counting dispute that premise.

 

[Seawytch]

And how were they being treated unequally? They had exactly the same rights as any of us.

Any willing and able man could marry any able and willing woman.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who is being discriminated against?

Mark

And how were blacks treated differently? They had exactly the same rights as whites.

Any willing and able black person could marry any able and willing black person, in addition any willing and able white person could marry another white person.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who was being discriminated against?

Mark (Yes my first name is also Mark).




See the structure of the similarity in the structure of the argument used today against gays and the structure of the argument used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to justify laws against different races marrying?



>>>>

Any black gay man can marry any female without regard to color. So your argument fails.
Gays have the same right to marry someone as the opposite sex as non gays.
Blacks can marry those of the opposite sex too.
So your example does not equate.

And yet the same argument you are making was made...and was successful for 85 years as an argument in support of anti miscegenation. There was no discrimination because the prohibition applied equally to men and women, black and white.

I see no difference between gender discrimination and discrimination based on race. It's still discrimination.

 

[Slyhunter]

And how were blacks treated differently? They had exactly the same rights as whites.

Any willing and able black person could marry any able and willing black person, in addition any willing and able white person could marry another white person.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who was being discriminated against?

Mark (Yes my first name is also Mark).




See the structure of the similarity in the structure of the argument used today against gays and the structure of the argument used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to justify laws against different races marrying?



>>>>

Any black gay man can marry any female without regard to color. So your argument fails.
Gays have the same right to marry someone as the opposite sex as non gays.
Blacks can marry those of the opposite sex too.
So your example does not equate.

And yet the same argument you are making was made...and was successful for 85 years as an argument in support of anti miscegenation. There was no discrimination because the prohibition applied equally to men and women, black and white.

I see no difference between gender discrimination and discrimination based on race. It's still discrimination.

Then you are blind.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then you are blind.

Yet you ignore the similarity in the structure of your own argument to those used in the past.

>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

It's not gender discrimination, it's discrimination against a behavior. Plain & simple. We are allowed to discriminate against certain behaviors. The Feds have no legit role in this issue in reality.

 

[80zephyr]

And how were they being treated unequally? They had exactly the same rights as any of us.

Any willing and able man could marry any able and willing woman.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who is being discriminated against?

Mark

And how were blacks treated differently? They had exactly the same rights as whites.

Any willing and able black person could marry any able and willing black person, in addition any willing and able white person could marry another white person.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who was being discriminated against?

Mark (Yes my first name is also Mark).




See the structure of the similarity in the structure of the argument used today against gays and the structure of the argument used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to justify laws against different races marrying?



>>>>

Marriage is not a partnership. It is Marriage.

And it is physically impossible for a gay couple to be married.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that the got the Loving decision wrong in 1967 when they ruled in the Loving case that denying interracial Civil Marriage was unconstitutional. Blacks were not denied Civil Marriage and whites were not denied Civil Marriage - it was the behavior (i.e. interracial marriage) that was in question.







>>>>

The SCOTUS was correct in 1967. There is one difference, however. Race has nothing to do with marriage. Gender has everything to do with marriage.



Mark

18 states and counting dispute that premise.

They can dispute it. But, my Ford won't become a Lincoln because I say its so.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And how were blacks treated differently? They had exactly the same rights as whites.

Any willing and able black person could marry any able and willing black person, in addition any willing and able white person could marry another white person.

That covers 100% of the adult population. Who was being discriminated against?

Mark (Yes my first name is also Mark).




See the structure of the similarity in the structure of the argument used today against gays and the structure of the argument used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to justify laws against different races marrying?



>>>>

Any black gay man can marry any female without regard to color. So your argument fails.
Gays have the same right to marry someone as the opposite sex as non gays.
Blacks can marry those of the opposite sex too.
So your example does not equate.

And yet the same argument you are making was made...and was successful for 85 years as an argument in support of anti miscegenation. There was no discrimination because the prohibition applied equally to men and women, black and white.

I see no difference between gender discrimination and discrimination based on race. It's still discrimination.

I disagree. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Calling two men or two women "married" is not logical.

Mark

 

[GreenBean]

The evidence points to a learned behavior. The twin study that liberals like to brag about actually ended up being complete horse shit & actually proved the opposition correct.

If being gay is genetic, how is it possible that there can be a straight & a homosexual in identical twins? They're identical in every way, except one is homosexual. How did that happen, scientific genius liberals who never fall for junk science?

In most cases of twins , there is a dominant twin and a submissive twin. Low birth weight, last born, or low Apgar score [assessment of how a baby is doing at birth.] tended to more often predict submissiveness. Submissive twins were most frequently the mentally fucked up ones - the queer of the pair.

It is also a proven fact that parents, whether they are aware of it or not, will generally favor one twin over the other - which leads to traumatic repercussions for the neglected twin - Oedipus implications and homsexuality are more prevalent in this scenario. Which could explain the reason behind one twin being normal and the other being a raging faggot.