It's Time to Talk About Polygamy, the Woman's Vote & Political Strategy

[Silhouette]

One step at a time.

Sotomayor has carefully been building a wave of lower court support, and how she has at least 6, possibly 7, votes if push comes to shove.

Polygamy is only a minor, minor distraction.

Polygamy isn't even part of the equation.

Keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel good. Just promise me you won't freak out if you're wrong, OK?

Read Windsor and prepare yourselves for possibly your first and most important significant setback. It isn't a total defeat though. Returning the power of defining marriage to the states where it has never left BTW [Windsor's findings on that are retroactive to the founding of the country], is not the end of the line for y'all. You just have to work harder and sell your values state by state to gain approval.

So far you have 3 legally and Windsor-blessed states where gay marriage can happen with a legitmate license. 47 left to go, one by one.

And with all the "majority support" you also profess such confidence in, those 47 states should just be a matter of snapping your fingers, right? Kind of makes you wonder why all this fuss about getting the fed to do your work for you. If you're selling a cluster of values [and not a race or something physicallly distinct], you need to roll up your sleeves and convince everyone in this majority-rules country that the values you're selling are what they want to buy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel good. Just promise me you won't freak out if you're wrong, OK? Read Windsor and prepare yourselves for possibly your first and most important significant setback.

(1) You should be making us that promise, because you will be doing just that within 24 months at the most.

(2) But, should your wildest dreams come true, the millennials will put that to rest within ten years.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel good. Just promise me you won't freak out if you're wrong, OK?

Read Windsor and prepare yourselves for possibly your first and most important significant setback. It isn't a total defeat though. Returning the power of defining marriage to the states where it has never left BTW [Windsor's findings on that are retroactive to the founding of the country], is not the end of the line for y'all. You just have to work harder and sell your values state by state to gain approval.

So far you have 3 legally and Windsor-blessed states where gay marriage can happen with a legitmate license. 47 left to go, one by one.

And with all the "majority support" you also profess such confidence in, those 47 states should just be a matter of snapping your fingers, right? Kind of makes you wonder why all this fuss about getting the fed to do your work for you. If you're selling a cluster of values [and not a race or something physicallly distinct], you need to roll up your sleeves and convince everyone in this majority-rules country that the values you're selling are what they want to buy.

Windsor was ONLY a ruling on part of the DOMA. Similarly, the ruling in Perry was only a ruling on whether the Hate Groups that were challenging Judge Walkers decision had standing to do so.

Since Windsor/Perry, judges have struck down the gay marriage laws in 14 states on the basis of their not comporting with the 14th Amendment.

The real signifigant rulings here were Romer (which states you can't discriminate against gays) and Lawerence- (which struck down all the Sodomy laws.) These are the rulings that effectively make gay marriage legal. If push comes to shove, SCOTUS will say as much, but they are happy to let this play out in the states for a while, letting legislatures overturn the laws and lower judges do most of the legwork for them.

End of the day, though, you've lost this issue. You need to learn how to cope.

 

[Silhouette]

Keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel good. Just promise me you won't freak out if you're wrong, OK? Read Windsor and prepare yourselves for possibly your first and most important significant setback.

(1) You should be making us that promise, because you will be doing just that within 24 months at the most.

(2) But, should your wildest dreams come true, the millennials will put that to rest within ten years.

At least you concede that the possibility for #2 exists; at least in part. Do the millenials have enough money to fight off traditional-marriage advertisements on Harvey Milk each October by then? Or will the public's mind be softened enough to child sex abuse that Milk's position as sexual-values leader in the cult just be a non-issue?

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor was ONLY a ruling on part of the DOMA. Similarly, the ruling in Perry was only a ruling on whether the Hate Groups that were challenging Judge Walkers decision had standing to do so.

Since Windsor/Perry, judges have struck down the gay marriage laws in 14 states on the basis of their not comporting with the 14th Amendment.

The real signifigant rulings here were Romer (which states you can't discriminate against gays) and Lawerence- (which struck down all the Sodomy laws.) These are the rulings that effectively make gay marriage legal. If push comes to shove, SCOTUS will say as much, but they are happy to let this play out in the states for a while, letting legislatures overturn the laws and lower judges do most of the legwork for them.

End of the day, though, you've lost this issue. You need to learn how to cope.

How funny, you deem "significant' those cases which you think support your cause. And "insignificant" Windsor which says states have the "unquestioned authority" under the topic of whether or not gay marriage is legal. Retroactive to the founding of the country no less....in "the way the Framers of the constitution intended". [Italics are actual quotes from Windsor on states' position and custodianship of the definition of marriage that the fed then must follow]

For the layman, that's a direct constitutional finding. You can call it insignificant. I call it the Law. The fact that lower court judges are defying the law is unimpressive. Unless you consider that the House is poised to impeach them upon the re-proclamation of Windsor's intent that they are acting in defiance of. There are two reasons why activist judges in the lower courts are forcing gay marriage on the various states in defiance of Windsor;

1. Liberal judges who are activist in violation of their position and

2. Conservative judges who are activist in violation of their position in order to corral "outrage votes" from the middle over to the right.

The bombs on polygamy and the unsavory connections between the LGBT cult and child sex abuse are ready to drop in the media. Mainly on Fox News, of course. But drop they will and the poor democrats will be sitting there like the hapless idiots they are...scratching their heads and asking each other as they always do, "what just happened"? It will be a similar version of what the GOP just did in 2012. Misreading the middle voters' mindset is a fatal mistake in political strategy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel good. Just promise me you won't freak out if you're wrong, OK? Read Windsor and prepare yourselves for possibly your first and most important significant setback.

(1) You should be making us that promise, because you will be doing just that within 24 months at the most.

(2) But, should your wildest dreams come true, the millennials will put that to rest within ten years.

At least you concede that the possibility for #2 exists; at least in part. Do the millenials have enough money to fight off traditional-marriage advertisements on Harvey Milk each October by then? Or will the public's mind be softened enough to child sex abuse that Milk's position as sexual-values leader in the cult just be a non-issue?

A possibility as likely as woman losing the right to vote.

The millennials would merely shrug at your concerns, once, and then ignore you.

The millennials are well aware that pedophilia is committed by adults at the general probably despite orientation.

You really don't understand them: they ignore that which they believe to irrelevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The bombs on polygamy and the unsavory connections between the LGBT cult and child sex abuse are ready to drop in the media" and will easily be countered with the truthful data that LGBT are no more dangerous than heterosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

"The bombs on polygamy and the unsavory connections between the LGBT cult and child sex abuse are ready to drop in the media" and will easily be countered with the truthful data that LGBT are no more dangerous than heterosexuals.

That's not what the statistics say bro:

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).
3,6,10,29
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Boys statistically underreport sex abuse against them as compared to girls, and hence the wide range of homosexual pedophiles like Harvey Milk from 9-40%. Due to underreporting, we can extrapolate that the statistic is more heavy towards the 40% number.

What that means is that at merely 2% of entire general population, homosexuals account for approaching HALF of ALL molestation against children.

That's what we call in the scientific world "a propensity to molest".

Taken with this statistic, in the laymen's worlds we have "Houston....we have a problem.."

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And....from the Mayo Clinic's same article:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

Add them all up and what do you get? The Gay Agenda, in a nut-shell. Pun intended.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The stats thrown on the Board clearly reveal that you are cherry picking, and so those stats deserve the amount of acceptance they don't get.

 

[Silhouette]

The stats thrown on the Board clearly reveal that you are cherry picking, and so those stats deserve the amount of acceptance they don't get.

So, to be clear, JakeStarkey has now declared his layman's status as a pyschologist and a behavioralist as dominant to those psychologists, researchers and behavioralists who have done the hard work and studies to find their findings in my last post.

Jake wants readers here to ignore the Mayo Clinic and the CDC in favor of his "legal opinion". I only hope that judges don't give more weight to a layman attorney than they do the leading world's scientists, professionals and researchers. Why bother sending your graduate to Harvard, Yale or MIT? Just send them to JakeStarkey's armchair law opinion University of the Gay Agenda. JUGA for short.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The stats thrown on the Board clearly reveal that you are cherry picking, and so those stats deserve the amount of acceptance they don't get.

So, to be clear, JakeStarkey has now declared his layman's status as a pyschologist and a behavioralist as dominant to those psychologists, researchers and behavioralists who have done the hard work and studies to find their findings in my last post.

Jake wants readers here to ignore the Mayo Clinic and the CDC in favor of his "legal opinion". I only hope that judges don't give more weight to a layman attorney than they do the leading world's scientists, professionals and researchers. Why bother sending your graduate to Harvard, Yale or MIT? Just send them to JakeStarkey's armchair law opinion University of the Gay Agenda. JUGA for short.

I got three "jakes" in Sil's reply; who else has four of a kind.

Your psychologists have been debunked repeatedly on the Board by other posters' evidence. Hint, Sil: that's why we have objective evidence. You should try it.

You have, as it has been explained to you, misused your evidence.

My sole duty to you is to remind that your evidence is not . . . well, really, evidence.

Tell us, Sil, how marriage equality harms your personal and civil rights. I will keep pointing out that you have never answered it though asked many times.

 

[Silhouette]

The stats thrown on the Board clearly reveal that you are cherry picking, and so those stats deserve the amount of acceptance they don't get.

So, to be clear, JakeStarkey has now declared his layman's status as a pyschologist and a behavioralist as dominant to those psychologists, researchers and behavioralists who have done the hard work and studies to find their findings in my last post.

Jake wants readers here to ignore the Mayo Clinic and the CDC in favor of his "legal opinion". I only hope that judges don't give more weight to a layman attorney than they do the leading world's scientists, professionals and researchers. Why bother sending your graduate to Harvard, Yale or MIT? Just send them to JakeStarkey's armchair law opinion University of the Gay Agenda. JUGA for short.

I got three "jakes" in Sil's reply; who else has four of a kind.

Your psychologists have been debunked repeatedly on the Board by other posters' evidence. Hint, Sil: that's why we have objective evidence. You should try it.

You have, as it has been explained to you, misused your evidence.

My sole duty to you is to remind that your evidence is not . . . well, really, evidence.

Tell us, Sil, how marriage equality harms your personal and civil rights. I will keep pointing out that you have never answered it though asked many times.

It harms the right of children who should not be adopted to these people: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

For stark and obvious reasons. Rendering the argument into "how does gay marriage hurt just this one person or that one person isn't the question. Children and their wellbeing is the FIRST topic of marriage: childrens' civil rights. Then we go on to discuss others situations. Always in that order.

In Utah, as you already know, marriage is the only legal state where people can adopt children. So if gays are allowed to force their ilk on the state "as married" the kids of that state can no longer be protected from the people like the ones in the photo from the OP of the thread in that link here.

 

[Montrovant]

We've gone from polygamy to an anti-gay rant, I see. Well, I guess now I understand where this thread really sprang from.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, to be clear, JakeStarkey has now declared his layman's status as a pyschologist and a behavioralist as dominant to those psychologists, researchers and behavioralists who have done the hard work and studies to find their findings in my last post.

Jake wants readers here to ignore the Mayo Clinic and the CDC in favor of his "legal opinion". I only hope that judges don't give more weight to a layman attorney than they do the leading world's scientists, professionals and researchers. Why bother sending your graduate to Harvard, Yale or MIT? Just send them to JakeStarkey's armchair law opinion University of the Gay Agenda. JUGA for short.

I got three "jakes" in Sil's reply; who else has four of a kind.

Your psychologists have been debunked repeatedly on the Board by other posters' evidence. Hint, Sil: that's why we have objective evidence. You should try it.

You have, as it has been explained to you, misused your evidence.

My sole duty to you is to remind that your evidence is not . . . well, really, evidence.

Tell us, Sil, how marriage equality harms your personal and civil rights. I will keep pointing out that you have never answered it though asked many times.

For stark and obvious reasons. Rendering the argument into "how does gay marriage hurt just this one person or that one person isn't the question. Children and their wellbeing is the FIRST topic of marriage: childrens' civil rights. Then we go on to discuss others situations. Always in that order.

By changing my question to fit your absurd needs, you clearly admit that marriage equality is of no harm to your personal and civil liberties.

You have in no way whatsoever have given conclusive evidence that children are at any more risk of abuse by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Thus your hetero fascism is getting very smelly.

Yeah, the children of Utah will be just as safe when marriage equality means all parents can adopt.

 

[Silhouette]

...You have in no way whatsoever have given conclusive evidence that children are at any more risk of abuse by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Thus your hetero fascism is getting very smelly.

Yeah, the children of Utah will be just as safe when marriage equality means all parents can adopt.

You think so? Take a good long look at the picture in the OP of the thread in the link below and ask yourself if children should be adopted to the homes of the people parading that down main street as a matter of "open pride" in front of children on the sidelines.

We have not relaxed our values as a society THAT much. Of that I can assure you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[Montrovant]

...You have in no way whatsoever have given conclusive evidence that children are at any more risk of abuse by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Thus your hetero fascism is getting very smelly.

Yeah, the children of Utah will be just as safe when marriage equality means all parents can adopt.

You think so? Take a good long look at the picture in the OP of the thread in the link below and ask yourself if children should be adopted to the homes of the people parading that down main street as a matter of "open pride" in front of children on the sidelines.

We have not relaxed our values as a society THAT much. Of that I can assure you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

You don't think there are plenty of straight, married couples who have habits you would consider unfit for parenting? Or do you think all gays are flamboyant and become part of parades?

And really, what specifically is it about that picture you feel makes that person unfit to adopt? Wearing the speedos, doing a split in public? The asinine slogan on the sign? What about that first picture screams 'you can't adopt'?

 

[Silhouette]

You don't think there are plenty of straight, married couples who have habits you would consider unfit for parenting? Or do you think all gays are flamboyant and become part of parades?

And really, what specifically is it about that picture you feel makes that person unfit to adopt? Wearing the speedos, doing a split in public? The asinine slogan on the sign? What about that first picture screams 'you can't adopt'?

I have not seen heteros parading sex acts and lewd behavior down any main street where children are anticipated, and indeed hoped, to attend as a matter of sober "pride". I have however seen footage of hundreds of such displays on behalf of the deviant sex cult known as LGBT.

No pervert should be adopted a child. No cult that espouses perversion in front of children as a matter of sober "pride" should be adopted a child. None. Nada. Zip.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...You have in no way whatsoever have given conclusive evidence that children are at any more risk of abuse by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Thus your hetero fascism is getting very smelly.

Yeah, the children of Utah will be just as safe when marriage equality means all parents can adopt.

You think so? Take a good long look at the picture in the OP of the thread in the link below and ask yourself if children should be adopted to the homes of the people parading that down main street as a matter of "open pride" in front of children on the sidelines.

We have not relaxed our values as a society THAT much. Of that I can assure you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Reported for rules violation. I have added the full post below:

By changing my question to fit your absurd needs, you clearly admit that marriage equality is of no harm to your personal and civil liberties. This is the part you cut and for which you have no answer.

You have in no way whatsoever have given conclusive evidence that children are at any more risk of abuse by heterosexuals or homosexuals. You give a stupid answer about pride. Step along.

Thus your hetero fascism is getting very smelly. Your post in defense of it makes it stink even more.

Yeah, the children of Utah will be just as safe when marriage equality means all parents can adopt.


And you and your disturbed ilk don't make the cultural rules anymore in America: you don't have the votes, you don't have the courts.

 

[Silhouette]

Reported for rules violation. I have added the full post below:

By changing my question to fit your absurd needs, you clearly admit that marriage equality is of no harm to your personal and civil liberties. This is the part you cut and for which you have no answer.

You have in no way whatsoever have given conclusive evidence that children are at any more risk of abuse by heterosexuals or homosexuals. You give a stupid answer about pride. Step along.

Thus your hetero fascism is getting very smelly. Your post in defense of it makes it stink even more.

Yeah, the children of Utah will be just as safe when marriage equality means all parents can adopt.


And you and your disturbed ilk don't make the cultural rules anymore in America: you don't have the votes, you don't have the courts.

Don't care. I have had lengthy discussions with the mods here who value free speech over anything else. Report away.

And, California did have the votes as evidenced by the initiative law [which cannot be changed without their permission] defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

There will be no "stepping along" when the core of democracy is threatened by a fascist rule and coup. Polygamy will be next to force itself on those who do not want it [the majority of voters]

 

[Montrovant]

You don't think there are plenty of straight, married couples who have habits you would consider unfit for parenting? Or do you think all gays are flamboyant and become part of parades?

And really, what specifically is it about that picture you feel makes that person unfit to adopt? Wearing the speedos, doing a split in public? The asinine slogan on the sign? What about that first picture screams 'you can't adopt'?

I have not seen heteros parading sex acts and lewd behavior down any main street where children are anticipated, and indeed hoped, to attend as a matter of sober "pride". I have however seen footage of hundreds of such displays on behalf of the deviant sex cult known as LGBT.

No pervert should be adopted a child. No cult that espouses perversion in front of children as a matter of sober "pride" should be adopted a child. None. Nada. Zip.

So who determines what is or is not perversion, and how do you determine who fits the criteria? Certainly there are many sexual practices which someone might consider perverted. Most of the time, a person has no idea if someone practices them.

First, why have you been watching video of hundreds of gay parades? Second, are you actually claiming that all of the hundreds of parades you have seen footage of had sex acts as part of the parade?

You hate gays. Think they are evil perverts. Got it. Are polygamists as well?