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

[Pop23]

Being naked in public is actually more natural then gay.

Unfounded opinion, and time to move on.

Lol, you born with a diaper on?

 

[Pop23]

You post ridiculous Strawman analogies, but get pissy if I use better ones.

Pop, I don't care how you try to justify your bigotry. That you try is toats adorbs.

The premise, that same sex couples are equal to opposite sex couples is the false argument.

Logic is pissy to SeaWitch?

A nudist feels he was born that way, does not effect anyone's marriage and knew he was a nudist his/her entire life. Why the discrimination when their lifestyle is far more consistent with nature than your?

Hater. Bigot.

The irony of you mentioning logic is rich beyond words. Pops idea of logic:

Pops: Gays can't marry because they don't have babies naturally
Logical people: Older and infertile couples can't have babies naturally
Pops: Yeah, but that's "normal"

Ta-da! Pop's "logic"

Nobody discriminates against nudists. No one can run around naked, not just nudists. You really don't understand the nature of discrimination do you? Nudists are not treated differently than everyone else. They are not kept from enjoying all the same laws, benefits and protections as people who are not nudists. Your analogies aren't just illogical, they're downright stupid.

Lol, spoken by someone who's entire life is illogical. Now you want to preach logic?

Your lifestyle makes logical reasoning impossible. You do realize that being placed in jail for being nude in public takes a few rights away right?

Was homosexual activity ever illegal?

Might want to think a bit before posting your warped logic.

 

[Silhouette]

Hate is a learned behavior. No baby is born hating anyone.

i imagine Jesus would not have approved of using his name to justify hate.

He probably wouldn't have approved of using his name to justify plucking minor orphaned teen boys off the street to sodomize and also act as "father figure" to. Like the cult of LGBT's messiah Harvey Milk.

 

[Silhouette]

The irony of you mentioning logic is rich beyond words. Pops idea of logic:

Pops: Gays can't marry because they don't have babies naturally
Logical people: Older and infertile couples can't have babies naturally
Pops: Yeah, but that's "normal"

Ta-da! Pop's "logic"

Nobody discriminates against nudists. No one can run around naked, not just nudists. You really don't understand the nature of discrimination do you? Nudists are not treated differently than everyone else. They are not kept from enjoying all the same laws, benefits and protections as people who are not nudists. Your analogies aren't just illogical, they're downright stupid.

Seawytch, you're good at inserting non sequitors, I'll give you that.

Don't be silly. Gays can't marry in all but 3 states because the majority of voters in all the other states decided those behaviors don't qualify. As was right and proper, affirmed most recently by Windsor.

And before you reply, remember we will be talking about how any precedent for regarding behaviors "as race" in the 14th means that other behaviors the majority rejects can use the precedent. That presents a problem with the bedrock of the American legal system and democracy itself. And that's probably why you keep trying to change the subject to something else.

 

[LockeJaw]

In what way are homosexuals a "race"?

Are they a seperate race from heterosexuals or something?

These arguments sound like they came out of the mind of someone who watched too much sci-fi growing up.

It really doesn't make any sense.

 

[Silhouette]

In what way are homosexuals a "race"?

Are they a seperate race from heterosexuals or something?

These arguments sound like they came out of the mind of someone who watched too much sci-fi growing up.

It really doesn't make any sense.

..lol.. yes..

And don't forget, for legal purposes only "LBGT" are a "race" of people. Other minority deviant sexual behaviors are just "icky things the majority has a right to object to". You know, like polygamy, incest and pedophilia. Then the majority is allowed to set standards.

 

[LockeJaw]

Yeah, that ain't gonna work. That's bound to get reversed. We got white homosexuals, black, red,yellow, & multi-racial homosexuals...but somehow they're a race? What sort of idiot judges are there out there that would uphold a bullshit ruling like that? Oh Im not asking because I don't know...just sayin'

We live in the twilight zone if that is left standing law. SMH

In what way are homosexuals a "race"?

Are they a seperate race from heterosexuals or something?

These arguments sound like they came out of the mind of someone who watched too much sci-fi growing up.

It really doesn't make any sense.

..lol.. yes..

And don't forget, for legal purposes only "LBGT" are a "race" of people. Other minority deviant sexual behaviors are just "icky things the majority has a right to object to". You know, like polygamy, incest and pedophilia. Then the majority is allowed to set standards.

 

[jillian]

In what way are homosexuals a "race"?

Are they a seperate race from heterosexuals or something?

These arguments sound like they came out of the mind of someone who watched too much sci-fi growing up.

It really doesn't make any sense.

Are you under the misimpression that equal protectin under the law applies only to different races?

Ummmmm......wrong

 

[Silhouette]

Are you under the misimpression that equal protectin under the law applies only to different races?

Ummmmm......wrong

Absolutely not. The 14th Amendment covers not just race, but also gender, religion and country of origin. LGBT qualifies on none of those categories. The only behaviors covered under the 14th are religions. So unless LGBT has applied for federal recognition as the cult they factually are, they're out of luck.

What you fail to understand jillian is the logic your ilk uses to justify getting special protection. It has a fatal flaw in our legal system. You are saying "we believe just the behaviors called LGBT are entitled to special protection from the majority rule". Meanwhile you covertly assert that "other behaviors don't qualify this way". Yet you know American law cannot arbitrarily favor one class or group of behaviors over another.

So what your group is asking for in reality is the dissolving of the American legal system at it's foundation. You want the minority behaviors LGBT to be able to dictate to the majority but no other behaviors that the majority finds objectionable. In your myopic world of legal ignorance, you're probably convinced this isn't a big deal. But if you rub elbows with attorneys who actually practice and rely upon law and legal precedents, what you're group is asking for is akin to the complete destruction of American law. You are asking the majority to discriminate against all other minority behaviors it finds objectionable, except yours. That is a HUGE rewrite for the way we do law and governance in this country.

 

[LockeJaw]

In what way are homosexuals a "race"?

Are they a seperate race from heterosexuals or something?

These arguments sound like they came out of the mind of someone who watched too much sci-fi growing up.

It really doesn't make any sense.

Are you under the misimpression that equal protectin under the law applies only to different races?

Ummmmm......wrong

No I am under the impression the 14th amendment protects race, religion, and gender(sex is the actual term).

Do they fit under gender? Um nope, that's why we call them homosexuals, dummy.

Do they fit under religion? Nope again, it definitely is NOT a religion.

Do they fit under race? Nope because there are homosexuals of every race. But they are legally considered a race under the 14th according to C CLayton & the rest of you sci-fi loony toon pro-gay normalizers. Which is bullshit.

Here is our future if this stupid ruling stands:

uncensored says that people will decide to abort the gay "race" out of existence, the gays will flip out & claim abortion on demand of gay fetuses is a form of genocide on their people...and some retarded leftist judges will agree, and women will be forced to give birth to gay babies.

How else would it turn out in the future, in your opinion?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In what way are homosexuals a "race"?

Are they a seperate race from heterosexuals or something?

These arguments sound like they came out of the mind of someone who watched too much sci-fi growing up.

It really doesn't make any sense.

They aren’t, and no one said they were.

Discrimination can be predicated on factors other than race, however, such as sexual orientation.

It doesn’t make any sense to you because of your hate and ignorance with regard to gay Americans; for those free from such hate it makes perfect sense.

 

[LockeJaw]

Sexual orientation is not protected under the 14th amendment, try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Being naked in public is actually more natural then gay.

Unfounded opinion, and time to move on.

Lol, you born with a diaper on?

Son, your unfounded opinion is merely that and not even interesting anymore.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you under the misimpression that equal protectin under the law applies only to different races?

Ummmmm......wrong

Absolutely not. The 14th Amendment covers not just race, but also gender, religion and country of origin. LGBT qualifies on none of those categories. The only behaviors covered under the 14th are religions. So unless LGBT has applied for federal recognition as the cult they factually are, they're out of luck.

What you fail to understand jillian is the logic your ilk uses to justify getting special protection. It has a fatal flaw in our legal system. You are saying "we believe just the behaviors called LGBT are entitled to special protection from the majority rule". Meanwhile you covertly assert that "other behaviors don't qualify this way". Yet you know American law cannot arbitrarily favor one class or group of behaviors over another.

So what your group is asking for in reality is the dissolving of the American legal system at it's foundation. You want the minority behaviors LGBT to be able to dictate to the majority but no other behaviors that the majority finds objectionable. In your myopic world of legal ignorance, you're probably convinced this isn't a big deal. But if you rub elbows with attorneys who actually practice and rely upon law and legal precedents, what you're group is asking for is akin to the complete destruction of American law. You are asking the majority to discriminate against all other minority behaviors it finds objectionable, except yours. That is a HUGE rewrite for the way we do law and governance in this country.

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment requires a consistent application of the law, both with regard to procedural due process and substantive due process; it applies the Federal Constitution to the states and local jurisdictions, and requires the states to afford all persons equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in absent a rational basis and proper legislative end violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendments and Due Process and Liberty Clauses of the 5th Amendment, as incorporated to the states.

The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons…We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Measures such as Colorado’s Amendment 2 and Utah’s Amendment 3 fail to meet these requirements, and have been invalidated by the courts accordingly.

 

[LockeJaw]

We have a rational reason...they don't qualify. Marriage laws are instituted to promote the raising of children in stable families, producing good & productive citizens, gays cannot have children...period.

They can have a civil union, which will give their unions the benefits they QUALIFY for, they don't even qualify to adopt children, unless they Had a kid prior to finding out they were "born gay", that's a totally different thing & I'm sure they can figure a way to make that work in a civil union.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sexual orientation is not protected under the 14th amendment, try again.

Also incorrect.

In upholding the lower court’s ruling that Colorado’s Amendment 2, seeking to deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws was un-Constitutional, the Supreme Court in fact acknowledged that gay Americans are entitled to 14th Amendment protections:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

 

[LockeJaw]

Doesn't matter, we are going to have that malarkey overturned.
How are homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples, who have all the chance to produce children, therefore produce tax paying, law abiding citizens?

This is not discrimination, it's simply the reality.

Gay unions will never be equal to traditional marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn't matter, we are going to have that malarkey overturned.
How are homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples, who have all the chance to produce children, therefore produce tax paying, law abiding citizens?

This is not discrimination, it's simply the reality.

Gay unions will never be equal to traditional marriage.

Except in some states the law requires different-sex couples to be infertile before issuing them a marriage license - in such cases there is no assumption that different-sex couples will have children.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Doesn't matter, we are going to have that malarkey overturned.
How are homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples, who have all the chance to produce children, therefore produce tax paying, law abiding citizens?

This is not discrimination, it's simply the reality.

Gay unions will never be equal to traditional marriage.

Actually, it already has been overturned. And when the SCOTUS clarifies Windsor when the Utah & Oklahoma cases make it there, the cult of LGBT is in for a shock. Windsor found, plainly and simply, that gay marriage is a new and weird concept and as such must be weighed against the broadest public opinion possible in the respective states in order for it to be legitimately legal. And then, and only then, once a given state has made it legal, the fed has to recognize that marriage from that state, but other states do not have to legitimize it.

Read it: pages 14-22 of the Opinion: United States v. Windsor

 

[Pop23]

Unfounded opinion, and time to move on.

Lol, you born with a diaper on?

Son, your unfounded opinion is merely that and not even interesting anymore.

Little one, you've been beaten and now got nothing.

Nothing new huh?