Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.

Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"

My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

1. Kennedy may not be wanting to go down in history as "the guy who mandated killing the discussion of whether or not states have a say in incentivizing a redaction to marriage that includes institutional deprivation of boys of fathers or girls of mothers." Most people if given the choice would rather come out as a champion of children and democracy than of perverted adults and an oligarchy of 9..

Given that Kennedy had no problem overturning the laws of Colorado and Texas when they violated the constitutional guarantees of gays, the weight of history points in the same direction for Obergefell.

And since denying same sex marriage hurts tens of thousands of children while benefiting none, if Kennedy wanted to champion children, he'd overturn same sex marriage bans.

2. Big Business may have decided "Get on with it!", but that was a foolish decision. Let me know who they are so I may prudently withdraw my stock and invest my money elsewhere in businesses that won't experience a backlash from the majority:

Nope. Remember, your ilk don't have a long attention span. Duck Dynasty's ratings spiked in defense of Phil Robertson......and then tapered off as opponents of same sex marriage lost interest. They continued to decline, as Phil Robertson alienated many of his viewers. With Duck Dynasty's ratings now in the toilet and on the edge of cancellation.

Being anti-gay marriage is bad for business. As a full 60% of the nation supports gay marriage. With only 37% opposing.

Lines wrapped around the block in support of Chic Fil-A's CEO's stance in favor of father/mother marriage:

For a day or two. And like Duck Dynasty.....your ilk lost interest. And the lines disappeared. Chic Fil-A quickly backed down, promised not to donate anymore money to anti-gay causes, and conceded to virtually every demand of their critics.

Again, being anti-gay is bad for business. As you alienate about 2/3rds of your customer base.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, being anti-gay is bad for business. As you alienate about 2/3rds of your customer base.

How is that again?....

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.
Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"
My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

1. Kennedy may not be wanting to go down in history as "the guy who mandated killing the discussion of whether or not states have a say in incentivizing a redaction to marriage that includes institutional deprivation of boys of fathers or girls of mothers." Most people if given the choice would rather come out as a champion of children and democracy than of perverted adults and an oligarchy of 9..

2. Big Business may have decided "Get on with it!", but that was a foolish decision. Let me know who they are so I may prudently withdraw my stock and invest my money elsewhere in businesses that won't experience a backlash from the majority:

Over one million likes in one day on the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page when they threatened to hurt Phil Robertson for being against gay marriage:

Lines wrapped around the block in support of Chic Fil-A's CEO's stance in favor of father/mother marriage:

Memories Pizza stands their ground and in 1 day they had to shut down support at $800,000 for fear the support-fund might grow too large:

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....oh, look. Sil has reached the spamming part of his argument. To answer your question, things didn't work out so well for those companies that took a stark anti-gay position:

2. Big Business may have decided "Get on with it!", but that was a foolish decision. Let me know who they are so I may prudently withdraw my stock and invest my money elsewhere in businesses that won't experience a backlash from the majority:

Nope. Remember, your ilk don't have a long attention span. Duck Dynasty's ratings spiked in defense of Phil Robertson......and then tapered off as opponents of same sex marriage lost interest. They continued to decline, as Phil Robertson alienated many of his viewers. With Duck Dynasty's ratings now in the toilet and on the edge of cancellation.

A&E's record-breaking series "Duck Dynasty" about the Robertson family is rapidly losing fans in its seventh season, leaving many experts wondering if the series is headed for cancellation.

Well-known for their long beards and Christian views, the Robertsons have scored A&E's highest ratings ever in recent years with "Duck Dynasty." For example, over 11 million people tuned in for the season four premiere, making it the most-watched nonfiction cable series in history. However, ratings for "Duck Dynasty" have slipped by more than 40 percent today, and rumors suggest the series could be headed toward cancellation.

Duck Dynasty Ratings Drop Robertson Family Entering Last Season on A E

Being anti-gay marriage is bad for business. As a full 60% of the nation supports gay marriage. With only 37% opposing.

Lines wrapped around the block in support of Chic Fil-A's CEO's stance in favor of father/mother marriage:

For a day or two. And like Duck Dynasty.....your ilk lost interest. And the lines disappeared. Chic Fil-A quickly backed down, promised not to donate anymore money to anti-gay causes, and conceded to virtually every demand of their critics.

Again, being anti-gay is bad for business. As you alienate about 2/3rds of your customer base.

Ignore as you will Sil. Business won't.

 

[Silhouette]

For a day or two. And like Duck Dynasty.....your ilk lost interest. And the lines disappeared. Chic Fil-A quickly backed down, promised not to donate anymore money to anti-gay causes, and conceded to virtually every demand of their critics.

Again, being anti-gay is bad for business. As you alienate about 2/3rds of your customer base.

Ignore as you will Sil. Business won't.

Duck Dynasty, Chic Fil-a, and when was Memories Pizza? Wasn't it just like last month? Hardly a momentum that is "dying down". You can try to say that the majority isn't there silently waiting to "show their support" (or remove it strategically) at the drop of a hat. But I know better. I recognize patterns that persist over time..

 

[Skylar]

For a day or two. And like Duck Dynasty.....your ilk lost interest. And the lines disappeared. Chic Fil-A quickly backed down, promised not to donate anymore money to anti-gay causes, and conceded to virtually every demand of their critics.

Again, being anti-gay is bad for business. As you alienate about 2/3rds of your customer base.

Ignore as you will Sil. Business won't.

Duck Dynasty, Chic Fil-a, and when was Memories Pizza?

Duck Dynasty's ratings have tanked since Phil went anti gay. The series is near cancellation. That's bad for business.

Chic Fil A has utterly backed down and capitulated to its critics on its anti-gay stance. As its bad for business.

Memories Pizza doesn't cater weddings. Gay or otherwise. Making the entire issue a red herring.

Wasn't it just like last month? Hardly a momentum that is "dying down". You can try to say that the majority isn't there silently waiting to "show their support" (or remove it strategically) at the drop of a hat. But I know better. I recognize patterns that persist over time..

Nope. You ignore the patterns. You ignored that Duck Dynasty's ratings have tanked since Phil's anti-gay stance. But your willful ignorance doesn't change the fact taht the show is on the edge of cancellation.

You ignored the Chic Fil-A utterly backpedaled, promising to never again give money to anti-gay causes. And gave in to virtually every demand of its critics on the matter.

And you ignore the overwhelming and growing support of Americans on the issue of gay marriage.....

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on its constitutionality next month. This is up from 55% last year and is the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996.

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

How fitting that your 'closing argument' would once again be your own willful ignorance.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, another manufactured polling graph. "100% of Americans (in the blue district of San Francisco) support gay marriage" translates to "a majority of Americans support gay marriage".

Yet it failed twice in California, the fruit and nut state of the Union. It failed there twice; as recently as 2008. With all the other evidence in the second post on this page, the jury's verdict is: "the LGBT polling data is faulty".

 

[Skylar]

Oh, another manufactured polling graph. "100% of Americans (in the blue district of San Francisco) support gay marriage" translates to "a majority of Americans support gay marriage".

So Gallup, one of the most respected polling agencies in the world is lying and manufacturing false graphs...and you're right?

Ladies and Gentlemen....I give you Sil's closing argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, another manufactured polling graph. "100% of Americans (in the blue district of San Francisco) support gay marriage" translates to "a majority of Americans support gay marriage".

So Gallup, one of the most respected polling agencies in the world is lying and manufacturing false graphs...and you're right?

Ladies and Gentlemen....I give you Sil's closing argument.

Yes, Gallup can get things wrong, depending on who is working collecting the data for them. It's so easy for gays to infiltrate every walk of life to promote their ideology. We see it happening everywhere. Why would gallup be immune? Especially during a time when the LGBT Agenda includes heavy doeses of smoke and mirrors? The FIRST place they would pack up with their ranks (after they finished doing that with the APA) would be polling work. Then of course Attorneys General and the like. Them or their sychophants.

Sure, Gallup would be an equal-opportunity employer. And LGBTs as smart and organized as they are wouldn't waste a minute filling those "help wanted" positions. From the very start of this Agenda it has been well organized and overseen by a poewrful group of gay activists. I had the opportunity to meet one of them once years ago. His methodology includes "herding people like livestock" by manipulating public perception. He has lawyer buddies so I won't mention his name here. But he has the same surname as one of Obama's high ranking gay appointees.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, another manufactured polling graph. "100% of Americans (in the blue district of San Francisco) support gay marriage" translates to "a majority of Americans support gay marriage".

So Gallup, one of the most respected polling agencies in the world is lying and manufacturing false graphs...and you're right?

Ladies and Gentlemen....I give you Sil's closing argument.

Yes, Gallup can get things wrong, depending on who is working collecting the data for them.

Do you have evidence that those working to collect data for Gallup have falsified support for gay marriage?

If so, present your evidence of 'infiltration'. But your imagination isn't evidence, Sil. Its a demonstration of how little evidence has to do with your perspective. And how you will ignore anything, from any source, using any method...if it doesn't ape what you want to believe.

And that is such a lovely closing argument for you.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, another manufactured polling graph. "100% of Americans (in the blue district of San Francisco) support gay marriage" translates to "a majority of Americans support gay marriage".

Yet it failed twice in California, the fruit and nut state of the Union. It failed there twice; as recently as 2008. With all the other evidence in the second post on this page, the jury's verdict is: "the LGBT polling data is faulty".

Damn you are stupid.

It failed twice here in California because we actually have a sizable Conserative minority- AND as recently as 2008, the majority of Californians were against same gender marriage.

However, in the last 7 years there has been a sea change in opinion- couples have been happily marrying here, and so far no plagues of locusts or zombie invasions.

Majority of voters in California now support gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, another manufactured polling graph. "100% of Americans (in the blue district of San Francisco) support gay marriage" translates to "a majority of Americans support gay marriage".

So Gallup, one of the most respected polling agencies in the world is lying and manufacturing false graphs...and you're right?

Ladies and Gentlemen....I give you Sil's closing argument.

Yes, Gallup can get things wrong, depending on who is working collecting the data for them. It's so easy for gays to infiltrate every walk of life to promote their ideology. We see it happening everywhere. Why would gallup be immune? Especially during a time when the LGBT Agenda includes heavy doeses of smoke and mirrors? The FIRST place they would pack up with their ranks (after they finished doing that with the APA) would be polling work. Then of course Attorneys General and the like. Them or their sychophants.

Sure, Gallup would be an equal-opportunity employer. And LGBTs as smart and organized as they are wouldn't waste a minute filling those "help wanted" positions. From the very start of this Agenda it has been well organized and overseen by a poewrful group of gay activists. I had the opportunity to meet one of them once years ago. His methodology includes "herding people like livestock" by manipulating public perception. He has lawyer buddies so I won't mention his name here. But he has the same surname as one of Obama's high ranking gay appointees.

LOL- its all a KONSPIRACY!.....

 

[Syriusly]

The issue at hand is whether or not the states get to define marriage. Have you read Windsor? Here, take a look, and when you do, remember that Kennedy at this latest hearing stated grave concerns about just 9 people killing the conversation...that more "social studies" were needed because the concept is so brand new...the stripping of children of either a father or mother figure as a state-forced institution..

Yeah, guy, Kennedy is not going to go down in history as the guy who delayed gay marriage. I mean, I know you poor over these decisions looking for any glimmer of hope that people will get to keep being bigots, but it ain't gonna happen.

Big Business has already decided, "Get on with it!" and the Repukes on the Supreme Court will say, "What is they bidding, my Master?"

My guess - 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts joining the Liberals.

2. Big Business may have decided "Get on with it!", but that was a foolish decision. Let me know who they are so I may prudently withdraw my stock and invest my money elsewhere in businesses that won't experience a backlash from the majority:

Well let me help you with that

Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

The list, provided in full below, includes corporate behemoths such as Coca-Cola Company, Goldman Sachs, Google and Morgan Stanley. It also includes brands like Ben & Jerry’s, a division of Unilever, and sports teams such as the New England Patriots, the San Francisco Giants and the Tampa Bay Rays.

And of course

I raise your Duck Dynasty with Apple, Coca Cola and Ben and Jerry's.

Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

The list, provided in full below, includes corporate behemoths such as Coca-Cola Company, Goldman Sachs, Google and Morgan Stanley. It also includes brands like Ben & Jerry’s, a division of Unilever, and sports teams such as the New England Patriots, the San Francisco Giants and the Tampa Bay Rays.

And of course

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm taking the case and drawing the exact same conclusion that Scalia and 43 of 46 federal rulings did

No.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm taking the case and drawing the exact same conclusion that Scalia and 43 of 46 federal rulings did

No.

Yes

 

[JoeB131]

1. Kennedy may not be wanting to go down in history as "the guy who mandated killing the discussion of whether or not states have a say in incentivizing a redaction to marriage that includes institutional deprivation of boys of fathers or girls of mothers." Most people if given the choice would rather come out as a champion of children and democracy than of perverted adults and an oligarchy of 9..

Except Kennedy doesn't accept your position that gay marriage is bad for kids--- so sorry.

2. Big Business may have decided "Get on with it!", but that was a foolish decision. Let me know who they are so I may prudently withdraw my stock and invest my money elsewhere in businesses that won't experience a backlash from the majority:

Here's a list.. 379 of them. Better get cracking.

Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

Amazon.com, Inc.
American Express Company
Apple Inc.
Bank of America
CVS Health Corporation
Microsoft Corporation*
Walmart...

Those are just a sampling.

But, yeah, a few bigots like you are really scaring these guys.

 

[Skylar]

I'm taking the case and drawing the exact same conclusion that Scalia and 43 of 46 federal rulings did

No.

Yes.

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. U.S.

Sound familiar? The bolded portion is my argument too.

Now why would I ignore 43 of 46 federal rulings AND Justice Scalia AND all of Kennedy's actions since the WIndsor ruling....

.....and instead believe you?

 

[SwimExpert]

and instead believe you?

That you're as dense as cold mercury.

 

[Skylar]

and instead believe you?

That you're as dense as cold mercury.

And you're done.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Kennedy may not be wanting to go down in history as "the guy who mandated killing the discussion of whether or not states have a say in incentivizing a redaction to marriage that includes institutional deprivation of boys of fathers or girls of mothers." Most people if given the choice would rather come out as a champion of children and democracy than of perverted adults and an oligarchy of 9..

Except Kennedy doesn't accept your position that gay marriage is bad for kids--- so sorry..

Then what was all that talk about needing more social science data before he would cut off the discussion at the state level with a federal mandate? Do you think he was just filling dead air time with idle chat saying that? Or did he mean to say that as a foreshadow to his decision?

 

[Skylar]

1. Kennedy may not be wanting to go down in history as "the guy who mandated killing the discussion of whether or not states have a say in incentivizing a redaction to marriage that includes institutional deprivation of boys of fathers or girls of mothers." Most people if given the choice would rather come out as a champion of children and democracy than of perverted adults and an oligarchy of 9..

Except Kennedy doesn't accept your position that gay marriage is bad for kids--- so sorry..

Then what was all that talk about needing more social science data before he would cut off the discussion at the state level with a federal mandate? Do you think he was just filling dead air time with idle chat saying that? Or did he mean to say that as a foreshadow to his decision?

That's Kennedy saying that the social science was too new to denote benefit or perils.

“I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” he said. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”

Justice Kennedy

Notice that Kennedy never says anything you do. You hallucinated all of that.

On the contrary, he points out how damaging your proposal is to children in the Windsor ruling:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers' same-sex spouses. . And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

So once again you hallucinate an argument for Kennedy that he's never made. While ignoring what he actually has. Putting the 'closed' into 'closing argument'.