Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Bulimics might organize and insist that vomit urns be put on restaurant tables. Currently, restaurants only accomodate "straight" eating-orientations. Forcing bulmics into the bathroom to vomit after eating is belittling and hateful to them. Further, bulimia-orientation isn't illegal in any state that I know of. Yet they continue to be discriminated against at restaurants nationwide. What kind of a bigoted nation are we?

And they might not. Your pointless speculation is irrelevant to the fact that the Supreme Court has specifically protected gays from discrimination in Romer v. Evans.

My point was not that they had organized as such or that they would, merely that they could. And it would be the identical "class" distinction since an eating-orientation is a behavior that the majority doesn't want to normalize by force, and a sexual orientation is a behavior the majority doesn't want to normalize by force. They are on the same legal footing. Both are dysfunctional fixated behaviors that the majority wants an interest in regulating out of the mainstream/examples to youngsters to mimic socially.

The Supreme Court above all other courts has a very keen eye for precedent and how it will affect their future decisions on same or simliar challenges. After all, what do lawyers do when they argue before them? That's right. They cite previous same or similar case law and use that as a shoehorn to wedge their current arguments to their favor. So SCOTUS bears this in mind on every decision they make.

In fact, it isn't an exaggeration to say that this is the lense through which every Decision they make is viewed first. Snarling up conflicting "classes" and "rights" and "priveleges" by setting unwield precedents based merely on behaviors is something the Court will not want to do to itself.

 

[Skylar]

Bulimics might organize and insist that vomit urns be put on restaurant tables. Currently, restaurants only accomodate "straight" eating-orientations. Forcing bulmics into the bathroom to vomit after eating is belittling and hateful to them. Further, bulimia-orientation isn't illegal in any state that I know of. Yet they continue to be discriminated against at restaurants nationwide. What kind of a bigoted nation are we?

And they might not. Your pointless speculation is irrelevant to the fact that the Supreme Court has specifically protected gays from discrimination in Romer v. Evans.

My point was not that they had organized as such or that they would, merely that they could.

Your point is irrelevant as its pointless speculation that ignores the fact that gays are a protected group. You're going off on another irrelevant tangent and abandoning discussion of same sex marriage.

Your claim that gays aren't protected is refuted by Romer v. Evans. Ignore as you wish. It really won't matter either way.

 

[mdk]

Wow Sil! It has been awhile since you've compared gays to bulimics in a sad attempt to change the topic. Glad to see you can still throw out the classics from time to time.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow Sil! It has been awhile since you've compared gays to bulimics in a sad attempt to change the topic. Glad to see you can still throw out the classics from time to time.

That's the thing. To the layman, it's a "change of topic". To a Supreme Court Justice it is precisely on topic. And really for the purposes of this thread, that's all that matters..

 

[mdk]

Wow Sil! It has been awhile since you've compared gays to bulimics in a sad attempt to change the topic. Glad to see you can still throw out the classics from time to time.

That's the thing. To the layman, it's a "change of topic". To a Supreme Court Justice it is precisely on topic. And really for the purposes of this thread, that's all that matters..

Whichever way the ruling goes I am sure it will contain numerous mentions of bulimia, Milk, and The Prince's Trust.

 

[Skylar]

Wow Sil! It has been awhile since you've compared gays to bulimics in a sad attempt to change the topic. Glad to see you can still throw out the classics from time to time.

That's the thing. To the layman, it's a "change of topic". To a Supreme Court Justice it is precisely on topic.

To the Supreme Court your random tangents are completely irrelevant. The Supreme Court doesn't read your posts. They don't care what random bullshit you tell yourself about gay marriage, or care what Supreme Court cases you ignore.

FOr crying out loud, you're still insisting that marriage is a privilege and that gays aren't protected....despite the USSC refuting both assumptions explicitly, affirming marriage is a right 4 times in 4 separate cases. And protecting gays from discrimination in Romer v. Evans. Kennedy himself wrote one of the decisions you are ignoring.

Feel free. It won't matter. As the Court isn't going to ignore itself.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right insist on wasting the other Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

 

[Syriusly]

..If two parent heterosexual couples are important to kids, then why don't the homophobes object to single parent households? If two parents are good, then one parent is not good. ...You know what I was trying to say, so sorry the SCOTUS is going to legalize gay marriage. I can't wait to see how many homophobes will commit suicide he day GM is legalized.

1. It's not just that two parents are important, it is their biological/psychological makeup that is also important. Never before in human history have we legitimized a woman standing in "as father" to a child, or a man standing in "as mother" to a child.

2. Charming that you would wish people opposed to so-called "gay marriage" to commit suicide. Your sentiments about your fellow men are noted for the record. If children were opposed to gay lifestyles would you want them to also commit suicide?

What's your bulllshit about psychological makeup? A dad could be psycho killer, mom could be a drug addict whore. How's that better than two loving gay men raising little kids?...

The exceptions to the rule of who can be married and why are not going to govern the rule. The rule is that children need BOTH a mother and a father to adjust socially and eventually to the larger social society they will one day belong to. There may be the exceptional nearly-blind driver who can navigate the roads with amazing ability; but that doesn't mean we lower the bar to accept him or any other blind or nearly blind person as "the new rule of who can drive".. We generalize because that's a smart idea over all.

Except of course- there is no rule that children need both a mother and a father- not for straight parents or gay parents.

The majority of children being raised without either a mother or a father are children of straight parents, of whom one of the parents has decided not to parent

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You would agree that kids are the most important entities in marriage, right?

No, and seek professional help before the Supreme Court rules against you. You'll need it.

Yeah, June is going to be rough for Sil.

Especially considering all the 'personal costs' Sil insisted that posting costs him. So much so that he it was effecting his health and he had to leave the board.

Or not.

It could be just the beginning.

It's been more than 40 years now and there are still nitwits on the right 'arguing' that the Supreme Court was 'wrong' and there is no right to privacy.

We're likely in for another 40 years of the same rightwing nitwits 'arguing' that the Supreme Court was 'wrong' about same-sex couples and their right to equal protection of the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Why does the right insist on wasting the other Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

I wouldn't know, I'm a democrat, middle democrat. Have been for decades. But from my POV, it was no waste. This question must be weighed upon by those who it will most deeply affect: our future society.

 

[Silhouette]

You would agree that kids are the most important entities in marriage, right?

No, and seek professional help before the Supreme Court rules against you. You'll need it.

Yeah, June is going to be rough for Sil.

Especially considering all the 'personal costs' Sil insisted that posting costs him. So much so that he it was effecting his health and he had to leave the board.

Or not.

It could be just the beginning.

It's been more than 40 years now and there are still nitwits on the right 'arguing' that the Supreme Court was 'wrong' and there is no right to privacy.

We're likely in for another 40 years of the same rightwing nitwits 'arguing' that the Supreme Court was 'wrong' about same-sex couples and their right to equal protection of the law.

That's if they come down on the side of just 9 people forcing all 300 million of us to accept motherless or fatherless "marriages" as the new institution of child-raising. I'll bet the house they're not going to do that. For multiple reasons. Children and the new social experiment is but one. Equally important though is what will be done to American legal precedent by setting a special protected class for what are essentially members of a deviant sex cult.

Have you read the transcripts? I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. I notice the LGBTs are already starting to woo state voters. Bear in mind of course the opposition will woo also.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You would agree that kids are the most important entities in marriage, right?

No, and seek professional help before the Supreme Court rules against you. You'll need it.

Yeah, June is going to be rough for Sil.

Especially considering all the 'personal costs' Sil insisted that posting costs him. So much so that he it was effecting his health and he had to leave the board.

Or not.

It could be just the beginning.

It's been more than 40 years now and there are still nitwits on the right 'arguing' that the Supreme Court was 'wrong' and there is no right to privacy.

We're likely in for another 40 years of the same rightwing nitwits 'arguing' that the Supreme Court was 'wrong' about same-sex couples and their right to equal protection of the law.

That's if they come down on the side of just 9 people forcing all 300 million of us to accept motherless or fatherless "marriages" as the new institution of child-raising.

Have you read the transcripts? I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. I notice the LGBTs are already starting to woo state voters. Bear in mind of course the opposition will woo also.

How many times have you been told, marriage is not about children. And, the majority now support gay marriage. And, the only case the Supreme Court took was the one that went against gay marriage, meaning, it's a done deal and they are going to rule against you.

If you believe, even for a second, anything else, you are seriously mentally ill and desperately need professional help before the ruling comes out and you blow your brains out over that and literally losing the farm. You are going to lose on this issue, there isn't a chance in hell that you won't, and you already have since in the majority of the nation gays can already marry. Seek, and I'm not kidding here. professional help for your depression and lack of rationality on this issue. It's either that, the loony bin, or your untimely death at this point. You are that irrational.

 

[Silhouette]

1. How many times have you been told, marriage is not about children. 2. And, the majority now support gay marriage. 3. And, the only case the Supreme Court took was the one that went against gay marriage, meaning, it's a done deal and they are going to rule against you.

4. If you believe, even for a second, anything else, you are seriously mentally ill and desperately need professional help before the ruling comes out and you blow your brains out over that and literally losing the farm. You are going to lose on this issue, there isn't a chance in hell that you won't, and you already have since in the majority of the nation gays can already marry. Seek, and I'm not kidding here. professional help for your depression and lack of rationality on this issue. It's either that, the loony bin, or your untimely death at this point. You are that irrational.

1. The Supreme Court was asking about if 2 men and 2 women wouldn't make better parents than just 1/1. So as they say, "there's your sign" that the SCOTUS was telling you they believe that marriage at least in significant part is about children. Read the transcripts.

2. If the majority support same sex marriage, then how come the democrats lost their ass in 2014 to middle dems crossing over republican? And, the same was said about Prop 8 just before it passed. So, I deduce your propaganda artists are lying. Then there's Chic fil-a, Duck Dynasty/A&E and Memories Pizza to wrestle with. The facts aren't lining up with your empty words. Real numbers are everything as it turns out.

3. The Court took on the case because it presented a rift in the lower courts; and rifts in the lower courts on a specific question of law are not allowed. Sutton therefore is to be commended for nudging the question to finally be Re-ruled upon (Windsor 2013) at the Highest level. It says nothing of the merits either way, nor should it because we are supposed to have unbiased Justices. Though two of them sitting on the case are clearly not.

4. Understanding points 1, 2 & 3 here does not make one "seriously mentally ill". Your standards of mental illness are weird, to put it mildly. You believe that a man who sodomized teen boys on drugs should be revered by children for his sexual accomplisments. I believe that both sides will get a fair trial. Which one of us is stark raving mad? I guess that all depends on where the reader's frame of reference is coming from. Hope you're right about #2 for your sake: though reality reflects that you are not.

 

[Skylar]

If the majority support same sex marriage, then how come the democrats lost their ass in 2014 to middle dems crossing over republican? And, the same was said about Prop 8 just before it passed. So, I deduce your propaganda artists are lying. Then there's Chic fil-a, Duck Dynasty/A&E and Memories Pizza to wrestle with. The facts aren't lining up with your empty words. Real numbers are everything as it turns out.

Because there's more than just gay marriage that motivates people to vote.

As for 'propaganda artists', you simply ignore anything you don't want to believe. Back in reality, the polling agencies contradicting you are excellent:

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Ignore as you will. Like the law, your willful ignorant is gloriously irrelevant.

3. The Court took on the case because it presented a rift in the lower courts; and rifts in the lower courts on a specific question of law are not allowed. Sutton therefore is to be commended for nudging the question to finally be Re-ruled upon (Windsor 2013) at the Highest level.

Windsor never found that same sex marriage bans were constitutional. So there's no 're-ruling'. There's merely your hallucination....which is legally meaningless.

4. Understanding points 1, 2 & 3 here does not make one "seriously mentally ill". Your standards of mental illness are weird, to put it mildly. You believe that a man who sodomized teen boys on drugs should be revered by children for his sexual accomplisments. I believe that both sides will get a fair trial. Which one of us is stark raving mad? I guess that all depends on where the reader's frame of reference is coming from. Hope you're right about #2 for your sake: though reality reflects that you are not.

You've already told us what damage posting on this board causes your health and what it costs you personally. You told us that the effects were so severe that you had to leave the board.

Yet...here you are. Your obsession with gays is stronger than your instinct for self preservation. You'll gladly harm your own health to feed that obsession.

That's not well

 

[Silhouette]

Putting the lie "that a majority of Americans support gay marriage" in large bold font, all caps, doesn't make the lie any less of a lie.

Prop 8 pollsters said the exact same thing. Then Prop 8 went on to win anyway.

And you know it's a lie. How do I know you know? Because if you truly felt a clear majority, some supposed 60% supported gay marriage then you'd be fine with a referendum on it and the game would simply be over then.

But you're not happy letting people vote on it. You're factually afraid of that. And that speaks very little confidence in your numbers; because you know your numbers are a lie.

 

[Skylar]

Putting the lie "that a majority of Americans support gay marriage" in large bold font, all caps, doesn't make the lie any less of a lie.

That's the font that Gallup chose. I just quoted them. But as closing arguments go, you're giving us a superb one:

Willful ignorance. Where you ignore any source that contradicts you. You'll ignore the USSC on if marriage is right. You'll ignore any study that affirms that the children of same sex couples are fine. And you'll ignore any poll that contradicts what you choose to believe.

Worse, you conclude that anything that contradicts what you choose to believe is a 'lie'. And you're inventing these elaborate, batshit conspiracy theories backed by jack shit.

I've got a much simpler and more plausible explanation that your multi-generational international conspiracy involving everyone from the American Psychological Association to Gallup polling:

You're just wrong.

Occams' Razor isn't your friend.

 

[Silhouette]

I've got a much simpler and more plausible explanation that your multi-generational international conspiracy involving everyone from the American Psychological Association to Gallup polling:

You're just wrong.

Occams' Razor isn't your friend.

In this case we have a zebra. I know one of the main founders of the perversion-coup movement and interacted with him and his friends for several years. Believe me, they believe in "herding people" around like livestock using theatrical techniques, smoke and mirrors.

How did that Prop 8 thing turn out for you? I heard just before that vote in 2008 that "a clear majority supports gay marriage" in California. I think it was Gallup, but I'll have to double check to be sure.

I wonder if Gallup pollsters ever saw the Boycott A&E numbers in 24 hours or the lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil a in support of Cathy's stance. Or how quickly support grew for Memories Pizza? I like to look at facts. You can look at your cooked up numbers until the cows come home for all I care.

 

[Skylar]

I've got a much simpler and more plausible explanation that your multi-generational international conspiracy involving everyone from the American Psychological Association to Gallup polling:

You're just wrong.

Occams' Razor isn't your friend.

In this case we have a zebra.

In this case we have you dismissing Gallup, one of the most trusted polling organizations on the planet not only being wrong, but lying. And backing this perception, you've invented elaborate conspiracy involving secret cults, The American Psychological Assocation, and calculated mind control techniques for half a century.

That's wildly elaborate and fantastically complicated. Here's a much simpler explanation:

You're wrong.

 

[mdk]

I've got a much simpler and more plausible explanation that your multi-generational international conspiracy involving everyone from the American Psychological Association to Gallup polling:

You're just wrong.

Occams' Razor isn't your friend.

In this case we have a zebra. I know one of the main founders of the perversion-coup movement and interacted with him and his friends for several years. Believe me, they believe in "herding people" around like livestock using theatrical techniques, smoke and mirrors.

How did that Prop 8 thing turn out for you? I heard just before that vote in 2008 that "a clear majority supports gay marriage" in California. I think it was Gallup, but I'll have to double check to be sure.

I wonder if Gallup pollsters ever saw the Boycott A&E numbers in 24 hours or the lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil a in support of Cathy's stance. Or how quickly support grew for Memories Pizza? I like to look at facts. You can look at your cooked up numbers until the cows come home for all I care.

It is abundantly clear you have lost the point when your proof that people don't support gay marriage consists of "likes" on Facebook and long lines at a fast food restaurant. The polls done by credible organizations means nothing when it runs counter to your narrative.

 

[Skylar]

I've got a much simpler and more plausible explanation that your multi-generational international conspiracy involving everyone from the American Psychological Association to Gallup polling:

You're just wrong.

Occams' Razor isn't your friend.

In this case we have a zebra. I know one of the main founders of the perversion-coup movement and interacted with him and his friends for several years. Believe me, they believe in "herding people" around like livestock using theatrical techniques, smoke and mirrors.

How did that Prop 8 thing turn out for you? I heard just before that vote in 2008 that "a clear majority supports gay marriage" in California. I think it was Gallup, but I'll have to double check to be sure.

I wonder if Gallup pollsters ever saw the Boycott A&E numbers in 24 hours or the lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil a in support of Cathy's stance. Or how quickly support grew for Memories Pizza? I like to look at facts. You can look at your cooked up numbers until the cows come home for all I care.

It is abundantly clear you have lost the point when your proof that people don't support gay marriage consists of "likes" on Facebook and long lines at a fast food restaurant. The polls done by credible organizations means nothing when it runs counter to your narrative.

Sil's sole standard of credbiility is that a source agree with what he believes. And he'll ignore anything that contradicts him, no matter the source. Gallup is folded into a massive international conspiracy as surely as the Supreme Court and the APA if they don't say what Sil believes.

And that's the message I want communicated as Sil's 'closing argument'.