June 2014: 10th Circuit Extends the Halt on Gay Marriage in Utah

[Silhouette]

Wait a minute. Why 5 years? The US Supreme Court is likely to hear all these appeals next year. Are you saying you'll have to get the US Supreme Court to overturn its own ruling in the four years that follow next year?

Oh well if it goes to the supreme court then I guess you're right! 1 year

Sounds good to me

Now you're really exposing your ignorance of the legal system. You're saying there's chance it won't make it to the US Supreme Court even while half a dozen same challenges are out there waiting to be answered and the lack of clarity or direction from Windsor hangs out there like a rotting albatross around the High Court's neck?

It'll go. It'll be heard. And there is no chance that either side will lie down and admit defeat at the 10th, so naturally there the LGBT cultees will be appealing a decision I feel fairly certain will land on the side of Utah and Oklahoma.

It will be heard, it and all the others [Prop 8 also implied]. So brush up on your legal skills and hone your legal knives because the monster before you is not whether or not you feel gays have this or that right, but will be instead whether or not gays are recognized legally as behavoirs. For if they are, they will lose as surely as I'm writing this and their "punishment" for losing will be to sell themselves and their subcultural values [see my signature for details] state by state in hopes of convincing the majority that their behaviors are no longer objectionable "as married" [and able to access adoptable orphans thereby]...

 

[TheOldSchool]

So brush up on your legal skills and hone your legal knives because the monster before you is not whether or not you feel gays have this or that right, but will be instead whether or not gays are recognized legally as behavoirs.

Lol you're silly

 

[Silhouette]

No rebuttal. I figured at much.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I wouldn't get too excited, bigots. A decision hasn't even been made yet.

The bigots are those who want to foist their irrelevant lifestyles onto others by legal force and disparage those who object. Can't you understand that logic?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's the right decision. There is much to learn before we as a society give this stuff the thumbs up. If we ever should, my opinion is no.

It's already been learned and demonstrated empirically. Communities with pluralities or majorities of children raised in homes missing a parent (usually the father) fail and are at constant risk. It's not promoted heavily enough because it doesn't jibe with the feminist and homo agendas of the left.
The data is in and it's very clear.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's the right decision. There is much to learn before we as a society give this stuff the thumbs up. If we ever should, my opinion is no.

It's already been learned and demonstrated empirically. Communities with pluralities or majorities of children raised in homes missing a parent (usually the father) fail and are at constant risk. It's not promoted heavily enough because it doesn't jibe with the feminist and homo agendas of the left.
The data is in and it's very clear.

Those studies compare two parent homes to single parent homes. The fact that the children are at risk is a - duh moment.

Now compare two, loving, different-sex parents in a committed long-term relationship over the 18 years of childhood to two, loving, same-sex parents in a committed long-term relationship over the 18 years of childhood and the results would mean something.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wouldn't get too excited, bigots. A decision hasn't even been made yet.

The bigots are those who want to foist their irrelevant lifestyles onto others by legal force and disparage those who object. Can't you understand that logic?

I will stand 100% with you when the government starts forcing people to marry people of the same sex.


That would be terrible.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Now compare two, loving, different-sex parents in a committed long-term relationship over the 18 years of childhood to two, loving, same-sex parents in a committed long-term relationship over the 18 years of childhood and the results would mean something.



>>>>

OK, here's a question for you Worldy. Let's say you're on an errand in Salt Lake City to pick up some hardware one day on your lunch hour from working as an adoption agent. A bunch of noise, ribbons and brightly colored costumes in a strange [and usually scantily advertised] parade heading down the street by the hardware store catches your eye and you head over to see what it's about. You round the corner and the picture below is what you see....

...The next day a gay male couple walks in. Lo and behold one of the men you clearly recognize as the man in the anal "do-me' position you saw the day before in broad daylight, with signs of "pride" held by all his fellow LGBT supporters looking directly at him and smiling in approval...with kids along the sidelines. So this guy walks into your adoption office and wants to adopt a baby boy. He's specific: he wants a boy. Do you adopt to him? Yes, or no and why? If he wants a girl do you adopt to him? Yes or no and why?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Whether it was a guy in his underwear getting his bum spanked or a woman flashing her tits to an adoring crowd with cameras and lettering a guy motorboat her...

I'd probably wouldn't approve adoption (if I was the Social Services Agent reviewing the case) based not on sexual orientation but based on a demonstrated lack of maturity by the individuals. That's why (outside of prviate adoption arrangements) public sector adoptions are based on factors such evaluations of the physical home, the environment the child will be raised in, criminal and financial background checks, emotional and maturity evaluations to ensure the individual(s) can handle the trials and tribulations of raising a child.


And that right there might be the difference between you and I, you continually take the extremists and apply a broad brush to try to paint and entire group. I'm old enough now to recognize the fallacy of that. I try not to form an opinion about all homosexuals based on a picture of a man in his underwear, a woman flashing her B(*Y*)Bies for cameras and groping, or a member of a Church holding up a sign saying "Fags should die" (a la WBC).


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I wouldn't get too excited, bigots. A decision hasn't even been made yet.

The bigots are those who want to foist their irrelevant lifestyles onto others by legal force and disparage those who object. Can't you understand that logic?

I will stand 100% with you when the government starts forcing people to marry people of the same sex.


That would be terrible.



>>>>

I will too...right after I get the government to force Angelina Jolie to marry me.

 

[Silhouette]

Whether it was a guy in his underwear getting his bum spanked or a woman flashing her tits to an adoring crowd with cameras and lettering a guy motorboat her...

I'd probably wouldn't approve adoption (if I was the Social Services Agent reviewing the case) based not on sexual orientation but based on a demonstrated lack of maturity by the individuals. That's why (outside of prviate adoption arrangements) public sector adoptions are based on factors such evaluations of the physical home, the environment the child will be raised in, criminal and financial background checks, emotional and maturity evaluations to ensure the individual(s) can handle the trials and tribulations of raising a child.


And that right there might be the difference between you and I, you continually take the extremists and apply a broad brush to try to paint and entire group. I'm old enough now to recognize the fallacy of that. I try not to form an opinion about all homosexuals based on a picture of a man in his underwear, a woman flashing her B(*Y*)Bies for cameras and groping, or a member of a Church holding up a sign saying "Fags should die" (a la WBC).


>>>>

Notice in the picture of the anal spread-eagle guy, that he is part of a parade down a public street; meant for public viewing. And note the couple of pairs of little hands gripping the rail just above and to the left of him within point-blank range of his upturned ass.

Next, observe that the photo of the Spring Break antics, there is a cloister of college aged men surrounding a woman where their bodies are guarding or blocking what is going on. They are not parading down main street. And there isn't a young child in sight nor any little pair of hands or beenie cap peeking out in the background.

There's your difference. Spring Break is known to be a bacchanal of young idiots who are drunk and who will wake up the next day regretting their actions. Families with young kids know to stay away from those beaches during Spring Break. The other was a "pride" parade, something they're "proud" of, on main street anytime, anywhere USA. Often little announced so the public essentially stumbles right onto them; on purpose. After all, how can the cult of LGBT get litte impressionable kids to show up if their parents know in advance and keep them away? Or if the event is held at some destination that can be avoided, instead of a daily-used public thoroughfare?

 

[Silhouette]

The bigots are those who want to foist their irrelevant lifestyles onto others by legal force and disparage those who object. Can't you understand that logic?

Yes, Adolph Hilter and other fascist tyrants understood that "logic" perfectly. When minority behaviors get to dictate to the majority who objects to them, human society devolves very quickly from that malignant precedent into chaos, suffering and demise. It's the entire reason America was founded. To set that precedent in stone via the seemingly-innocent promotion of the cult of LGBT to "protection via the 14th' would be worse than a mistake. It would be pointing and launching a heat-seeking missile right at the beating heart of democratic rule. That assassination of our ruling Principle would have ripple effects much wider than Citizen's United ever did.

There is LOT more at stake with this "gay marriage" thing than meets the eye. We as a society must not spare a single rock to turn over in our search for 1. the etiology of homosexuality: where it comes from and where it's going. 2. The uncanny associations with child predators that keeps rearing its ugly head in the LGBT subcultural movement [cult] and 3. Whether or not we want to teach future generations of children that marriage = anything you want it to.

Like it or not, the 14th cannot apply to a minority group of behaviors, unless those behaviors are federally-recognized religions. Cults have a way of spinning out of control and fast-tracking themselves directly into a fascist state unless curbed by a longstanding and accepted basic morality and regard for others woven into the fabric of that religion. That's why sharia law is in big trouble and by extension, islam in the US. If your cult or religion involves hurting people, don't expect the 14th to cover it. And if you don't think the cult of LGBT [but not polygamy for some reason, for now] hurts people, consider that their messiah Harvey Milk used to pluck orphaned minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize and officate as their "father figure/guardian" to. If you think that isn't harmful, then you've drunk the Koolaide and the ATF needs to step in before your movement gets way too out of control.