Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[paddymurphy]

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor

No, you cannot. You cannot prove what religion someone is. You cannot prove a specific ethnicity. And a gay person can Prove they are gay.

 

[Pop23]

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor

No, you cannot. You cannot prove what religion someone is. You cannot prove a specific ethnicity. And a gay person can Prove they are gay.

The 14th amendment came into being in the 1860s. The protection for freedom of religion was well before that. You knew that, right? It's an enumerated right.

If a dead person is found in a car. I can through objective and reliable tests indeed determine sex, ethnicity and many other factors. Objective and reliable test as to its sexuality........

Not so much.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is covered within the Bill of Rights which were instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is an enumerated right, instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

Absolutely, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal government. With passage of the 14th Amendment then the 1st Amendment became applicable through expansion of those protections being applicable to local and state entities.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is an enumerated right, instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

Absolutely, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal government. With passage of the 14th Amendment then the 1st Amendment became applicable through expansion of those protections being applicable to local and state entities.


>>>>

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

Let's say this body is of a man assumed to be heterosexual, yet someone claims the individual was actually gay. Through a reliable and objective test, prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is an enumerated right, instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

Absolutely, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal government. With passage of the 14th Amendment then the 1st Amendment became applicable through expansion of those protections being applicable to local and state entities.


>>>>

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

Let's say this body is of a man assumed to be heterosexual, yet someone claims the individual was actually gay. Through a reliable and objective test, prove it.

So Ellen Degeneres can't prove she's gay?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.

If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.

Same applies with any other religion.

>>>>

 

[Pop23]

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is an enumerated right, instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

Absolutely, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal government. With passage of the 14th Amendment then the 1st Amendment became applicable through expansion of those protections being applicable to local and state entities.


>>>>

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

Let's say this body is of a man assumed to be heterosexual, yet someone claims the individual was actually gay. Through a reliable and objective test, prove it.

So Ellen Degeneres can't prove she's gay?

Not the question.

She can say she is, but found wandering the streets with a severe brain injury that adversly effects her memory, how could authorities prove she is?

 

[Pop23]

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.

If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.

Same applies with any other religion.

>>>>

But, most do.

So most could use a test to determine this.

I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.

If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.

Same applies with any other religion.

>>>>

But, most do.

So most could use a test to determine this.

I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.

As you admit, "most do". Which means there is no reliable and object test to conclusively prove a persons claimed religion.

The implication of the original post along this line that I responded to is that there are reliable and objective tests in all civil rights characteristics except for sexual orientation.

I just showed you were wrong.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.

If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.

Same applies with any other religion.

>>>>

But, most do.

So most could use a test to determine this.

I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.

As you admit, "most do". Which means there is no reliable and object test to conclusively prove a persons claimed religion.

The implication of the original post along this line that I responded to is that there are reliable and objective tests in all civil rights characteristics except for sexual orientation.

I just showed you were wrong.


>>>>

Oh sure, most do is much larger then can't. Lol, of course zero is the equivalent to 99%.

 

[paddymurphy]

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor

No, you cannot. You cannot prove what religion someone is. You cannot prove a specific ethnicity. And a gay person can Prove they are gay.

The 14th amendment came into being in the 1860s. The protection for freedom of religion was well before that. You knew that, right? It's an enumerated right.

If a dead person is found in a car. I can through objective and reliable tests indeed determine sex, ethnicity and many other factors. Objective and reliable test as to its sexuality........

Not so much.

Your posts get dumber and dumber. The 14 th incorporated all of the bill of rights so that states were now subject to them. And what the fuck does a dead body have to do with this?

 

[paddymurphy]

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is an enumerated right, instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

Absolutely, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal government. With passage of the 14th Amendment then the 1st Amendment became applicable through expansion of those protections being applicable to local and state entities.


>>>>

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

Let's say this body is of a man assumed to be heterosexual, yet someone claims the individual was actually gay. Through a reliable and objective test, prove it.

So now you claim that a person cannot claim a particular faith unless they can show papers? Did you get a membership card at your baptism? You are hilarious

 

[paddymurphy]

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.

If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.

Same applies with any other religion.

>>>>

But, most do.

So most could use a test to determine this.

I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.

There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.

 

[Faun]

I never said they could. Again, from the law you post....

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.​

According to you, same-sex marriage is illegal in Iowa because the law is still on the books.

Nope, that was declared unconstitutional due to the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

The rest remained.

No, the rest did not remain. Any laws pertaining to gender and marriage are affected. Iowa law never allowed close family marriage. The spirit of their law doesn't change in that regard because you imagine some "loophole" was created by their Supreme Court.

And again, I point out (even though everyone here has already witnessed this) -- you can't find a single married same-sex close-family couple. How's that possible if you were right?

Do your own legwork Einstein.

While your at it, find those 9 footers that your logic says can't be married cuz you can't find them.

There's no leg work I need to do. You're the one claiming those marriages are legal but can't show where a single such couple got married. And then there's your hurdle of acquiring a marriage license to marry your brother...

MARRIAGE LICENSES

If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.

1. Marriages in Iowa are between 2 people who are (1) 18 years of age and older; (2) not already or still legally married to someone else or each other; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.

And those they exclude as too closely related are listed. All male/female.

As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"

 

[Faun]

I never said they could. Again, from the law you post....

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.​

According to you, same-sex marriage is illegal in Iowa because the law is still on the books.

Nope, that was declared unconstitutional due to the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

The rest remained.

No, the rest did not remain. Any laws pertaining to gender and marriage are affected. Iowa law never allowed close family marriage. The spirit of their law doesn't change in that regard because you imagine some "loophole" was created by their Supreme Court.

And again, I point out (even though everyone here has already witnessed this) -- you can't find a single married same-sex close-family couple. How's that possible if you were right?

Do your own legwork Einstein.

While your at it, find those 9 footers that your logic says can't be married cuz you can't find them.

There's no leg work I need to do. You're the one claiming those marriages are legal but can't show where a single such couple got married. And then there's your hurdle of acquiring a marriage license to marry your brother...

MARRIAGE LICENSES

If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.

1. Marriages in Iowa are between 2 people who are (1) 18 years of age and older; (2) not already or still legally married to someone else or each other; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.

Dumbass destroyed its own argument by posting a proposed law to be introduced into the iowa legislature that makes same sex family marriage illegal. Therefore an admission it is legal now.

No, it's not legal now. That's why they will not allow marriages between any closely related family members, regardless of gender.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is an enumerated right, instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

Absolutely, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal government. With passage of the 14th Amendment then the 1st Amendment became applicable through expansion of those protections being applicable to local and state entities.


>>>>

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

Let's say this body is of a man assumed to be heterosexual, yet someone claims the individual was actually gay. Through a reliable and objective test, prove it.

So Ellen Degeneres can't prove she's gay?

Not the question.

She can say she is, but found wandering the streets with a severe brain injury that adversly effects her memory, how could authorities prove she is?

How did they prove people were gay when it was against the law?

 

[Pop23]

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

How do you prove a claim by reliable and objective testing whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. when the claim is valid if the person adopted the faith just the day before?


>>>>

Is this at all applicable to the 14th amendment? Freedom of religion is not a 14th amendment issue as it is an enumerated right, instituted well before the 1860s.

Rock on

Absolutely, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal government. With passage of the 14th Amendment then the 1st Amendment became applicable through expansion of those protections being applicable to local and state entities.


>>>>

Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.

Let's say this body is of a man assumed to be heterosexual, yet someone claims the individual was actually gay. Through a reliable and objective test, prove it.

So now you claim that a person cannot claim a particular faith unless they can show papers? Did you get a membership card at your baptism? You are hilarious

My parents did. And the church recorded it!

BOOM

 

[Pop23]

Nope, that was declared unconstitutional due to the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

The rest remained.

No, the rest did not remain. Any laws pertaining to gender and marriage are affected. Iowa law never allowed close family marriage. The spirit of their law doesn't change in that regard because you imagine some "loophole" was created by their Supreme Court.

And again, I point out (even though everyone here has already witnessed this) -- you can't find a single married same-sex close-family couple. How's that possible if you were right?

Do your own legwork Einstein.

While your at it, find those 9 footers that your logic says can't be married cuz you can't find them.

There's no leg work I need to do. You're the one claiming those marriages are legal but can't show where a single such couple got married. And then there's your hurdle of acquiring a marriage license to marry your brother...

MARRIAGE LICENSES

If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.

1. Marriages in Iowa are between 2 people who are (1) 18 years of age and older; (2) not already or still legally married to someone else or each other; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.

Dumbass destroyed its own argument by posting a proposed law to be introduced into the iowa legislature that makes same sex family marriage illegal. Therefore an admission it is legal now.

No, it's not legal now. That's why they will not allow marriages between any closely related family members, regardless of gender.

Cite either the Iowa Supreme Court or the USSC then.

Oops