Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[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.

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.

Hey, which polling agency was it who polled Prop 8 to lose in California in 2008 just before that vote? Do you remember which one that was?

You'd think of any state in the nation to reflect the "pro-gay" polling results accurately at the polls, it would be ground zero for that movement...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You are delusional at a level that can only be described as clinical. God help you in a few weeks when they rule against you, and they will. You can bet on it.

 

[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.

Hey, which polling agency was it who polled Prop 8 to lose in California in 2008 just before that vote? Do you remember which one that was?

You'd think of any state in the nation to reflect the "pro-gay" polling results accurately at the polls, it would be ground zero for that movement...

Gallup trends to the right, Sil. And yet you're still clinging to this absolutely batshit conspiracy that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows a majority of americans support gay marriage must be falsifying their polling results and has been for at least half a decade. You even made up a conspiracy about how gays had infiltrated the polling agencies as part of this vast, international conspiracy you've made up. All backed by absolutely nothing but your own fevered fantasies and hallucinations.

That's mental illness, Sil. Just so we're clear. You've let this issue quite literally drive you insane.

The reality is far simpler: you're just wrong. And a majority of Americans support gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You are delusional at a level that can only be described as clinical. God help you in a few weeks when they rule against you, and they will. You can bet on it.

Sil's definitely crossed that threshold.

We're talking to a crazy person.

 

[danielpalos]

I think she really just needs a full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work; for therapeutic, stress management.

 

[Silhouette]

Gallup trends to the right, Sil. And yet you're still clinging to this absolutely batshit conspiracy that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows a majority of americans support gay marriage must be falsifying their polling results and has been for at least half a decade. You even made up a conspiracy about how gays had infiltrated the polling agencies as part of this vast, international conspiracy you've made up. All backed by absolutely nothing but your own fevered fantasies and hallucinations.

So which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gallup trends to the right, Sil. And yet you're still clinging to this absolutely batshit conspiracy that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows a majority of americans support gay marriage must be falsifying their polling results and has been for at least half a decade. You even made up a conspiracy about how gays had infiltrated the polling agencies as part of this vast, international conspiracy you've made up. All backed by absolutely nothing but your own fevered fantasies and hallucinations.

So which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

Prop 8 won once, and now it would lose, and it's unconstitutional. It's over and done with little faggot-hater, move on.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You are delusional at a level that can only be described as clinical. God help you in a few weeks when they rule against you, and they will. You can bet on it.

Sil's definitely crossed that threshold.

We're talking to a crazy person.

Yep, truly one for institutionalization. If she makes it to July without putting a gun in her mouth it will be a miracle. That is cheese so off the cracker it was found in the next county.

 

[Skylar]

Gallup trends to the right, Sil. And yet you're still clinging to this absolutely batshit conspiracy that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows a majority of americans support gay marriage must be falsifying their polling results and has been for at least half a decade. You even made up a conspiracy about how gays had infiltrated the polling agencies as part of this vast, international conspiracy you've made up. All backed by absolutely nothing but your own fevered fantasies and hallucinations.

So which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

If you have a claim to make, make it. If you have evidence that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows support for gay marriage is falsifying their data because they've been inflitrated by homosexuals...

..present it.

But you can't back up any of that batshit. All you can do is insinuate it. As I've said, you'll ignore anything that contradicts you, any poll, using any methodology.....if it contradicts what you want to believe. And you'll believe anything, no matter how insane or factually baseless...if it affirms what you want to believe.

As you just demonstrated with your hysteric 'all polling agencies are lying!' batshit conspiracy theory.

That insanity is your closing argument.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You are delusional at a level that can only be described as clinical. God help you in a few weeks when they rule against you, and they will. You can bet on it.

Sil's definitely crossed that threshold.

We're talking to a crazy person.

Yep, truly one for institutionalization. If she makes it to July without putting a gun in her mouth it will be a miracle. That is cheese so off the cracker it was found in the next county.

I think I just need more practice with full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work.

 

[Silhouette]

Gallup trends to the right, Sil. And yet you're still clinging to this absolutely batshit conspiracy that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows a majority of americans support gay marriage must be falsifying their polling results and has been for at least half a decade. You even made up a conspiracy about how gays had infiltrated the polling agencies as part of this vast, international conspiracy you've made up. All backed by absolutely nothing but your own fevered fantasies and hallucinations.

So which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

I notice the question didn't get answered on the last page. Instead a bunch of ad hominems were directed at me by three posters in unison. So I'll ask it again:

Which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

None.

Talking head political commentators with an agenda may have made such claims, but not the polling agency themselves.

There are 4 factors reports in such a poll. The "Yes" column, the "No" column, the "Undecided" column, and the "Margin of Error" column (expressed an a percentage).

At no time did the "No" column exceed the combined "Yes" and "Undecided" columns by a factor greater then the "Margin of Error".

No polling agency would have made such a prediction based on the actual poll results shown here -->> California Proposition 8 2008 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Gallup trends to the right, Sil. And yet you're still clinging to this absolutely batshit conspiracy that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows a majority of americans support gay marriage must be falsifying their polling results and has been for at least half a decade. You even made up a conspiracy about how gays had infiltrated the polling agencies as part of this vast, international conspiracy you've made up. All backed by absolutely nothing but your own fevered fantasies and hallucinations.

So which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

I notice the question didn't get answered on the last page. Instead a bunch of ad hominems were directed at me by three posters in unison. So I'll ask it again:

Which polling agency told the world that Prop 8 was going to lose because gay marriage "is so popular" in California (ground zero for LGBT agenda)?

And I'll say again, if you have a point to make regarding a polling agency and Prop 8...make it. But giving us homework assignments to back an argument you can't even make isn't evidence of your batshit conspiracy.

As you're not claiming that 'a polling agency' is in your fantastically elaborate, clinically insane conspiracy theory. You're claiming that ALL polling agencies that disagree with you are in on the conspiracy.

And have nothing to back that claim. Not even an argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In three weeks this will be a done deal. Thank God for small favors.

What Sil will do after that, God only knows.

 

[Silhouette]

In three weeks this will be a done deal. Thank God for small favors.

What Sil will do after that, God only knows.

Move to a country that has not destroyed its majority-rule foundation?

We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

Regulation of behaviors has always been at local levels in the penal, civil and family codes of each state, enacted and maintained by the push and pull of progressive vs conservative values. Progressives are like the unbrindled think-tank of "what if we try this?". Conservatives are the brakes on that system. You take the brakes off a vehicle like this rainbow-progressivism, for example, and you might as well hang it up. Majority rule preserves both the new ideas and the brakes on those new ideas. What LGBTs are asking the Court to do is nothing less than removing the braking system for that vehicle . These questions belong to the states' majorities. And that is where they must remain or we will have no democracy.

 

[Skylar]

In three weeks this will be a done deal. Thank God for small favors.

What Sil will do after that, God only knows.

Move to a country that has not destroyed its majority-rule foundation?

That's a little melodramatic. Especially since the Loving Decision in 1967 already overturned majority approved laws that violated the constitution.

If that were your standard, you'd have packed up in era of Madmen's 3rd season.

We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

Obvious nonsense. The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

 

[Silhouette]

Loving was about race. The people involved did not violate the known expression of the word marriage for thousands of years: man/woman. The man involved had a penis. The woman involved had a vagina. So they qualified. Not so with gays who want "neo-marriage" to mean no father or no mother to the kids involved.

There is nothing "melodramatic" about warning people of the destructive-precedent that would be set if the US Supreme Court finds that a minority group of just some (but not all, yet) deviant BEHAVIORS can dictate to the majority's regulation of them without the majority being allowed to weigh in.

That is the factual destruction of our rule of government. I can see why you called it "melodramatic". Because after debating this with you for years now, I've come to observe that when I make an excellent point, you always following it up by a term chosen to minimize it or ridicule it. Today you chose "melodramatic". Other days you have chosen other adjectives/adverbs.

 

[Montrovant]

Loving was about race. The people involved did not violate the known expression of the word marriage for thousands of years: man/woman. The man involved had a penis. The woman involved had a vagina. So they qualified. Not so with gays who want "neo-marriage" to mean no father or no mother to the kids involved.

There is nothing "melodramatic" about warning people of the destructive-precedent that would be set if the US Supreme Court finds that a minority group of just some (but not all, yet) deviant BEHAVIORS can dictate to the majority's regulation of them without the majority being allowed to weigh in.

That is the factual destruction of our rule of government. I can see why you called it "melodramatic". Because after debating this with you for years now, I've come to observe that when I make an excellent point, you always following it up by a term chosen to minimize it or ridicule it. Today you chose "melodramatic". Other days you have chosen other adjectives/adverbs.

You've made an excellent point somewhere?

 

[Skylar]

Loving was about race.

So what? First, your standard is overturning the will of the majority. Loving did that. In fact, when Loving overturned interracial marriage bans public support for such bans was in the 80s. Gay marriage bans enjoy mid to high 30s in support today. So Loving was a much more severe 'afront' to the will of the majority that overturning gay marriage bans.

Second, the USSC has cited 4 race based discrimination cases while describing why discrimination against gays is invalid. Including Loving. You can claim that race based discrimination is irrelevant to gays. But the USSC clearly disagrees.

There is nothing "melodramatic" about warning people of the destructive-precedent that would be set if the US Supreme Court finds that a minority group of just some (but not all, yet) deviant BEHAVIORS can dictate to the majority's regulation of them without the majority being allowed to weigh in.

The melodrama would be you throwing a tantrum and leaving the US for another country if you don't get your way.

Ask Alec Baldwin how that works out.

That is the factual destruction of our rule of government.

No it isn't. None of these issues are new. The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't. And our government isn't be 'destroyed' by a ruling affirming gay marriage, my little drama queen.

 

[Silhouette]

What is "gays"? I guess we should talk about that first before we decide whether or not "gays" are protected. Did you forget that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to behaviors? The only loophole for you there is for LGBTs to FINALLY declare themselves a religion...which is what they factually are...