LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[frigidweirdo]

Your reading and comprehension skills are as bad as I've seen. You are a total waste of time. A true joke.

Well you've proven you can insult. Well that puts you in the top 99.99% of US citizens based on intelligence. Well done.

Question. Did you, or did you not write: "Or he could marry his college roomate, even though both are straight."

Now, my reading skills may not be the best in the world, but I'm struggling with the word "roomate", oh, but I'm being petty and silly. Actually my point is this, before you start insulting, DON'T, because you'll just make a fool out of yourself and I'm not interesting in an infantile slagging match, okay?

Second, you said this.

So.... I made the comment that someone could easily do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, but with a WOMAN.

Now, your argument is, if someone can marry another person to get benefits, that makes a mockery of marriage.

Now, you said that two straight men marrying for benefits makes a mockery of marriage. How does a man and a woman marrying for benefits not make a mockery of marriage.

As someone else said, how does Elvis Chapels in Vegas not make a mockery of marriage?

As I have said, how does a divorce rate that is half that of the marriage rate for straight people not make a mockery of marriage?

You're throwing arguments into the wind that you've probably read in some religious leaflet that wasn't designed to be thought through very much because the only audience are those who hate gay people and will be accepted no matter what.

So please, answer these questions and don't just make some snide remark, or an insult, or ignore, because, while i've only been on this board a few days and spend one of those without electricity, it's getting rather old and boring, and I've seen it before, and it's not clever either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Proving you are an uninformed idiot all over again.
All tbe people living will eventually die. Every one of them. Growth comes only from new people, not old ones. When the replacement rate falls below 2.1, you are losing population. Period. Europe is especially hard hit by this. In 150 years there will be Germans, French or Italians left. Or very few.

What are you going on about?

Every year, if left to natural devices, the US will GROW. Is that simple enough for you?

4 million people are born, 2.5 million die, and this is the US losing people.

You do the math for me, and tell how.

 

[The Rabbi]

Proving you are an uninformed idiot all over again.
All tbe people living will eventually die. Every one of them. Growth comes only from new people, not old ones. When the replacement rate falls below 2.1, you are losing population. Period. Europe is especially hard hit by this. In 150 years there will be Germans, French or Italians left. Or very few.

What are you going on about?

Every year, if left to natural devices, the US will GROW. Is that simple enough for you?

4 million people are born, 2.5 million die, and this is the US losing people.

You do the math for me, and tell how.

Wow. Just wow. Please tell me you never went to college.

 

[Flopper]

And if you extend marriage to homosexual and lesbian couples, then they would also be entitled to marital privacy, correct? Then you're excluding homosexual and lesbian couples from their freedom to marital privacy by not allowing them to be legally married.

Why are Conservatives so interested in homosexuals' and lesbians' private lives? Isn't that what big government liberals do?

Because the vast majority of Conservatives are Christians and most Christians oppose gay marriage. Conservatives can't use religion as the basis for their argument before the court, however everyone from the Chief Justice to the man on street knows the real argument is "homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord."

OH Right, let's just forget it's unnatural as hell. Our little freaks of nature should be allowed to do any damned thing they want. Of course most of them aren't any more deranged than the average democrat.

Unnatural as hell and freaks of nature, that should make a good arguement

 

[Flopper]

Our birthrate is barely at replacement rate. We need more kids, not fewer.
THe divorce rate is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.

A natural increase of 1.4 million is not "barely at replacement rate", sorry, it's not.

Oh look, here are some facts to destroy your pitiful little opinion. Now go and skulk somewhere else.
U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

So gay marriage will discourage sexual intercourse between straights and gays and reduce the birth rate. That would be an interesting argument to present to the court, almost as good as unnatural as hell and freaks of nature.

 

[The Rabbi]

A natural increase of 1.4 million is not "barely at replacement rate", sorry, it's not.

Oh look, here are some facts to destroy your pitiful little opinion. Now go and skulk somewhere else.
U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

So gay marriage will discourage sexual intercourse between straights and gays and reduce the birth rate. That would be an interesting argument to present to the court, almost as good as unnatural as hell and freaks of nature.

You're right. I never proposed that argument but it's an interesting one. Probably wrong but wtf?

 

[Seawytch]

Your point?

They aren't fulfilling their "biological function" as OKTexas insists must be done in order for there to be marriage. He's wrong and misguided, of course...

So what? Lots of people don't. That isn't the point. The rule is built on the general, not the exceptions to it.

Except the US Supreme Court had to rule for convicted murderers on death row to have the right to marry. (Turner v. Safley)

 

[KNB]

According to Conservatives like Rabbi, gay people like RuPaul are fabulous!, unnatural freaks of nature who will burn in Hell for eternity.

How do these people even dress themselves, let alone figure out a voting ballot?

 

[The Rabbi]

They aren't fulfilling their "biological function" as OKTexas insists must be done in order for there to be marriage. He's wrong and misguided, of course...

So what? Lots of people don't. That isn't the point. The rule is built on the general, not the exceptions to it.

Except the US Supreme Court had to rule for convicted murderers on death row to have the right to marry. (Turner v. Safley)

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[The Rabbi]

According to Conservatives like Rabbi, gay people like RuPaul are fabulous!, unnatural freaks of nature who will burn in Hell for eternity.

How do these people even dress themselves, let alone figure out a voting ballot?

I dont recall saying RuPaul was an unnatural freak of nature who would burn for eternity.
You, on the other hand....

 

[OKTexas]

Why do you care if it's natural? Tattoos aren't natural. Breast implants aren't natural. Coloring your hair isn't natural. Driving a car instead of walking isn't natural.

Fuck you and your deflections, ain't gonna go there.

So, you don't care if things are unnatural. You only care about icky gays. Meaning your whole argument of natural vs unnatural is just an excuse for bigotry.

You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.

 

[OKTexas]

They aren't fulfilling their "biological function" as OKTexas insists must be done in order for there to be marriage.

You may remember this from the OP?

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

If you are going to quote me please do so in full context.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Fuck you and your deflections, ain't gonna go there.

So, you don't care if things are unnatural. You only care about icky gays. Meaning your whole argument of natural vs unnatural is just an excuse for bigotry.

You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.

"Subsidize"? I thought it was just letting people keep more of what they earned?

 

[JakeStarkey]

frigid weirdo is making The Rabbi look silly, but that is not difficult.

Sil is running around in circles.

The far right reactionary weirdos hear the pitter pat of time's little feet getting ready to stomp their hopes and dreams.

 

[OKTexas]

So, you don't care if things are unnatural. You only care about icky gays. Meaning your whole argument of natural vs unnatural is just an excuse for bigotry.

You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.

"Subsidize"? I thought it was just letting people keep more of what they earned?

Not all, some they give you money even when you pay nothing in. If only it was just keeping what you earned.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.

"Subsidize"? I thought it was just letting people keep more of what they earned?

Not all, some they give you money even when you pay nothing in. If only it was just keeping what you earned.

So if a same sex couple makes enough money that they barely get any return at all, would you be okay with those same sex couples?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You do the math for me, and tell how.

Wow. Just wow. Please tell me you never went to college.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, I've had it with you.

You insult, you continue to insult, you give another load of neg rep with "dunce" as the comment.

I don't debate with insulters, you're a waste of space.

Let me know when you learn some respect...........................

 

[frigidweirdo]

You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.

Where does it say in the constitution that freaks don't enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of the people?


Oh, yeah, it doesn't, in fact the 14th amendment says they have the SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES as everyone else before DUE PROCESS.

Let's see you get these people up in front of a court and declared incompetent to rule their own lives then......

 

[The Rabbi]

]

Wow. Just wow. Please tell me you never went to college.

To be honest, I've had it with you.
You insult, you continue to insult, you give another load of neg rep with "dunce" as the comment.
I don't debate with insulters, you're a waste of space.

Let me know when you learn some respect...........................

I can't respect someone so obviously ill informed and unsuited to debate as you. You lose the debate and then complain I insult you. You insult the intelligence of everyone who stops to read your worthless posts.

 

[The Rabbi]

You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.

Where does it say in the constitution that freaks don't enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of the people?


Oh, yeah, it doesn't, in fact the 14th amendment says they have the SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES as everyone else before DUE PROCESS.

Let's see you get these people up in front of a court and declared incompetent to rule their own lives then......

You're not actually confusing subsidies with rights and privileges, right? I mean, that would be stupid. Farmers get special tax breaks. Miners get special tax breaks. People who heat their house with solar power get special tax breaks. But I dont. It's DISCRIMINATION, DAMN IT!! I want my rights!!