Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in favor of political passions of the moment that involve ideology.

There absolutely is when it comes to kids. Mark my words right here and now.

Did you know that you don't need proof but merely the suspicion of child endangerment in order to launch a formal investigation into the suspect? And if you don't report your suspicions, you can be charged with a misdemeanor in most states? The reason for that is that the Law places the highest priorty and the most lax interpretation of "adult civil rights" when it comes to the wellbeing of children.

Be prepared for that to be the case here. Children cannot vote and as such are the most rigorously-protected when it comes to civil rights.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in favor of political passions of the moment that involve ideology.

There absolutely is when it comes to kids. Mark my words right here and now.

Did you know that you don't need proof but merely the suspicion of child endangerment in order to launch a formal investigation into the suspect? And if you don't report your suspicions, you can be charged with a misdemeanor in most states? The reason for that is that the Law places the highest priorty and the most lax interpretation of "adult civil rights" when it comes to the wellbeing of children.

Be prepared for that to be the case here.

dudette, you have nothing but fallacy to work with. willful appeal to ignorance of our own laws is a moral turpitude.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, direct your 'destruction' comments to SCOTUS. They're the ones you're talking to here, remember?

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did.

And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have.

That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

 

[Skylar]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in favor of political passions of the moment that involve ideology.

There absolutely is when it comes to kids.

But your proposal only hurts children, Sil. You can't cite a single benefit to any child in denying gay marriage. And the courts have found immediate legal harm to 10s of thousands of kids.

Hurting kids is not helping kids. Its merely using them as 'collateral damage' in your obsession with gays.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no argument from those of your point of view regarding appeals to ignorance of the law.

 

[Skylar]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away.

No, Sil....YOU want you to go away. You've already told us all the harm your posting here causes you. How you can no longer handle it. How it stressess you out. How it adversely effects your health. And how you were leaving the board for the sake of your mental and physical health.

Shall I post you saying all of this?

And yet here you are, hurting yourself. Damaging your health. All to feed an anti-gay obsession. That's not healthy. You're literally hurting yourself so you can hurt gays. And its a shitty trade. As your heath is immediately relevant to you. If some gay guy in another state gets married isn't.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

[/quote]

Same problems always: gay marriage and same sex parenting aren't the same thing. If you deny same sex marriage, there is still same sex parenting. As gays and lesbians have kids anyway. Denying gay marriage doesn't mean there won't be same sex parenting. It only guarantees that the children of same sex parents never have married parents.

Which hurts them.

And its gay parenting that you're railing against. With Justice Kennedy rejecting soundly rejecting that nonsense.

"And and it goes back to the basic point where you began where you had some premise that only opposite sex couples can have a bonding with the child. That's that was very interesting, but it's just a wrong premise."

Justice Kennedy, Obergefell Hearing; question 1.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf

Worse, you're arguing that children is the only basis of marriage. Kennedy rejects that nonsense too:

"That assumes that samesex couples could not have the more noble purpose, and that's the whole point. Same sex couples say, of course, we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can't procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled."

Justice Kennedy, Obergefell Hearing; question 1.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf

Destroying your two primary arguments. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

 

[mdk]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

 

[Skylar]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

Citing a study on pedophiles and trying to use it as evidence against gays was about as intellectually loathsome as you can get. Oh, its gobbled by the folks that already oppose gay marriage. But for those folks that don't.....its distasteful. And only weakens the case against gay marriage.

An argument that has merit doesn't need that kind of gross misrepresentation.

 

[mdk]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

Citing a study on pedophiles and trying to use it as evidence against gays was about as intellectually loathsome as you can get. Oh, its gobbled by the folks that already oppose gay marriage. But for those folks that don't.....its distasteful. And only weakens the case against gay marriage.

An argument that has merit doesn't need that kind of gross misrepresentation.

Indeed. Sil has no other choice but to misrepresent data to support her crusade. The Prince's Trust is one of many examples.

 

[Silhouette]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

So you believe that advocating for children's best interests in having both a mother and a father in marriage is "alienating" me from most people? You realize of course that what you're celebrating in that statement is that children don't have a voice in this debate. Boiled down further, you're celebrating that children don't have a voice.

That's a little disturbing. I'm pretty sure an objective poll would say that most people agree with me, not you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

So you believe that advocating for children's best interests in having both a mother and a father in marriage is "alienating" me from most people? You realize of course that what you're celebrating in that statement is that children don't have a voice in this debate. Boiled down further, you're celebrating that children don't have a voice.

That's a little disturbing. I'm pretty sure an objective poll would say that most people agree with me, not you.

Yet again, marriage is not about children, and never has been.

 

[mdk]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

So you believe that advocating for children's best interests in having both a mother and a father in marriage is "alienating" me from most people? You realize of course that what you're celebrating in that statement is that children don't have a voice in this debate. Boiled down further, you're celebrating that children don't have a voice.

That's a little disturbing. I'm pretty sure an objective poll would say that most people agree with me, not you.

You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. The instant you can't use children to harm gay people you toss them aside like last weeks leftovers. They are nothing more than pawns to you.

 

[Silhouette]

You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. The instant you can't use children to harm gay people you toss them aside like last weeks leftovers. They are nothing more than pawns to you.

I think that's what psychologists (back in the old days when the APA existed intact as a credible institution) would call "projection", mdk...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. The instant you can't use children to harm gay people you toss them aside like last weeks leftovers. They are nothing more than pawns to you.

I think that's what psychologists (back in the old days when the APA existed intact as a credible institution) would call "projection", mdk...

Without religion, being gay would never have been thought of as a mental illness, which it isn't. You however, do suffer from mental illness. Try focusing on that for a while, it will be better for everyone.

 

[Skylar]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

So you believe that advocating for children's best interests in having both a mother and a father in marriage is "alienating" me from most people?

Again, denying gay marriage has nothing to do with a child's best interest. As denying marriage to a lesbian couple only hurts their children. And helps no child. Its not like denying a lesbian couple marriage magically means their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees they never have married parents.

All of which you know.

You realize of course that what you're celebrating in that statement is that children don't have a voice in this debate. Boiled down further, you're celebrating that children don't have a voice.

More accurately, we're celebrating children receiving the benefits of married parents. Remember, your proposal to deny marriage to same sex parents helps no child. And hurts 10s of thousands.

Kennedy has already dismantled both of your arguments: that same sex parenting is bad. And that children are required for marriage. Yet you ignore Kennedy, ignore the Supreme COurt, ignore the 10s of thousands of children you are hurting, ignore the fact that your proposal benefits no child.

I won't ignore any of that.

 

[Skylar]

You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. The instant you can't use children to harm gay people you toss them aside like last weeks leftovers. They are nothing more than pawns to you.

I think that's what psychologists (back in the old days when the APA existed intact as a credible institution) would call "projection", mdk...

With the differnce between a 'credible' APA and a 'non-credible' APA being that the the APA no longer agrees with you.

Again, you ignore any source that contradicts your beliefs. Even if its the same source you're citing. You ignore any expert, any study, any finding, any ruling, anything.....if it doesn't ape what you already believe. That's called 'Confirmation Bias'. And its a fallacy of logic.

As agreement with you isn't a basis of credibility.

Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.

 

[Skylar]

Silo....the USSC hasn't tapped out due to stress or damage to their personal health. You did....And yet here you are, stressing yourself out, damaging your own health.....to feed an anti-gay obsession you have....That's not well. Your health is a far higher priority that your obsession. As your health effects you. Gay marriage really doesn't.

Yes, I know Skylar, you want me to go away. You want this conversation to not happen. I know.

And that's exactly what Kennedy was complaining about at the hearing about your camp. Kennedy's position was that this radical new change to marriage deserves input from the governed, and a continuing observation of the states that (foolishly/kneejerk IMHO) ratified legal gay marriage to see how those arrangements affect children. It is wholly improper to use kids as lab rats. But some states thought it would be OK.

Nobody wants you to go away drama queen. In fact, the more you post the more people you alienate from your side. I encourage you to keep spreading your manure b/c your only doing the gay community and their allies a great service. You should get a ticker-tape parade in your honor.

So you believe that advocating for children's best interests in having both a mother and a father in marriage is "alienating" me from most people? You realize of course that what you're celebrating in that statement is that children don't have a voice in this debate. Boiled down further, you're celebrating that children don't have a voice.

That's a little disturbing. I'm pretty sure an objective poll would say that most people agree with me, not you.

You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. The instant you can't use children to harm gay people you toss them aside like last weeks leftovers. They are nothing more than pawns to you.

Exactly. When asked how his proposals benefit ANY child, he's got nothing. When pressed about the 10s of thousands of children his proposal hurts, he says that they aren't what he's concerned with.

Children are merely a horse for Sil to ride. If they don't let him hurt gay people, they're beneath consideration. Even if Sil's proposals cause them immediate legal harm by the 10s of thousands.

So much for this being 'about the kids'.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Sil.....since this is your 'closing argument', and you're focused on holes in argumnts, why don't you resolve the swiss cheese your claims have become:

1) You won't discuss the 14th amendment violations of excluding only gays from marriage for being unable to have children, but allowing any infertile straight couple to marry. Either the same standard applies to both or neither. And our law is clear: its neither. As no couple

Destroying your argument.

2) You won't discuss how denying gay marriage hurts 10s of thousands of children and benefits no child. You don't even disagree. And his axiomatic pair of facts destroys any claim that your argument is 'for children'. Your proposal does nothing but hurt children.

Destroying your argument.

3) You won't discuss the littany of studies that contradict you, affirming that the children of same sex parents are fine. Large scale studies, small scale studies, longitudinal studies, studies done in the US, studies done abroad, they all contradict you.

Destroying your argument.

4) You won't discuss the fact that marriage is a fundamental civil right, instead insisting its 'only a priveledge'. The SCOTUS contradicts you repeatedly. The legality of gay marriage is a legal question. Logically, the standards of legal precedent and legal findings are the lens through which this debate should be had.

And through that lens, marriage is a right.

Destroying your argument.

5) You won't discuss the fact that the Windsor decision explicitly places state marriage laws as subordinate to constitutional guarantees. And cites as precedent a case where state marriage laws were overturned when they violated individual rights. Nor will you discuss Scalia's dissent on Windsor where he found that the court's position against gay marriage was 'beyond mistaking', and their application of windsor against state gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

Destroying your argument.

I can go on and on with factual errors in your argument, misrpresentations of the evidence, or calculated omissions (like every study that contradicts you) that demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

Your argument just doesn't work. Which is why you ignore every hole in your reasoning, every legal contradiction, every study that contradicts you, every constitutional violation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned, and worse considering this particular question of law, may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007:

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 “abused abusers 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 http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC"..

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... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion:

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Bigotry in the name of religion.

Too add to a classic:

• Hate is Beneficial
• Evil is Godly