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

[Silhouette]

The key question with regards to Utah isn't about adults. It's about children. Pay close attention because you keep losing that key concept:

There is no denying the strong bonds of the natural biological child of two parents. A woman has the birth and pregnancy to foster this bond. A man sees his own eyes, chin, nose or hair on his infant and warmly regards him as "a chip off the old block". These two people, should they be in love, are the best two people in the world to raise that child. They see themselves in their child and part of that child; as one. That's why vows implore participants in marriage to stick by each other through thick and thin, to not forsake each other for another. It isn't for their benefit. It is for their children's benefit that this is so. Marriage is about children. It is society's insurance that children [future adult members] receive the best possible upbringing as a rule.

A society has a deeply vested interest in preserving this situation. Gays don't fit the bill. It is physically impossible. Wherease at least with barren hetero couples their pledge to each other doesn't conflict legally with the acme marital situation. The rule: one man and one woman. Gays have not qualified.....especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs.

Marriage is an incentive with perks. It's a reward for certain behaviors. Those behaviors are to be a man and a woman, coming together in love, in a bonded pair to reproduce and produce children who rely on their relationship to grow into fully fledged, well rounded and productive citizens. No marriage is perfect but the icon is preserved to encourage people to strive for that perfection, that gold ring, so that in so striving a child's chances of health and wellbeing are enhanced. Bestowing "marriage" upon two people of the same gender who regard sex as assisted masturbation and who revere and defend a child sex predator are not qualifying for Utah's standards for its children.

I know what the issue that is being made out here. But it simply isn't an issue.

You talk about the bond of two parents. Not an issue. The kids you're talking about aren't the kids who have two loving parents. They're the kids who need adopting, either the kids whose parents aren't together, or the kids who parents are abusive, or whatever the situation may be, it's not NORMAL in the sense you're making out.

You want these kids to go to a "normal" home, but are there enough? No is the simple answer in many cases.

You want to preserve this situation as if gay people not marrying other gay people will simply go "oh, well I'll just be straight then, and marry". Sorry, that doesn't exist. Gay people are gay whether you like it or not.

Allowing them to marry doesn't stop men and women marrying together, and it certainly doesn't stop them divorcing at a great rate like they do right now, more than one divorce for every two marriages in the US suggests they aren't doing a very good job of giving incentives for people to provide this secure home.

Surely they should be trying to give incentives for people to be knowledgeable when they go into relationships and want to have kids. Do they do this? Marriage isn't the incentive it used to be, people can get easy divorces.

"especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs."

This is a statement that doesn't make sense to me. As if all gay people support this guy. Do you think gay people just want to rape everyone? Come off it. Let's stick to the reality here.

Some gay people have adopted and abused children. Some straight people have adopted and abused children.
You want to stop gay people from adopting because some have abused, but you don't want to stop straight adults from doing so. Right!

Marriage is a reward for certain behaviours? Like what? Cheating on their wife? Beating their wife? What exactly?

You don't make loving couples through marriage. Seriously, you don't. Married couples who stay together for life and take care of their children don't do so because of marriage. They do so because this is what they want from life.

With the rate of divorce so high, many don't do this with marriage, and wouldn't do so without marriage.

You're looking in the wrong place if you want to help kids on this issue.

Especially with the right in the US making a massive hash of dealing with poverty.

Your case is that there is a backlog of orphans and as such we should relax the standards of which homes they fall into. Since your group venerates and holds as its messiah, a child sex predator; and your group refuses to denounce him but instead vigorously defends his behaviors, you are essentially saying "just loosen up and let the kiddies come into these homes".

And I say "no". It is better for a child to be raised supervised in a state home with oversight than turned loose into the dark recesses behind closed doors of people who are clearly demonstrative that they do not have children's best interests in mind.

So after all what gays are really after, according to you, in marriage is the access to adoptable children. I thought so. Their wishes, however, do not stand as grounds for Utah to be forced to dissolve her standard as to the best arrangement to call "married" [to entice with its perks] for people to gravitate towards. Your insistence is going to raise the issue of Harvey Milk. It may not be an issue now. But I suspect it will be if you keep pushing it. Which is fine. I'd like to hear gays defend their collective-reverence for Harvey Milk's actions towards orphaned teen boys in open court....and defend why they require children in California to venerate his sexuality as "the first openly gay politician" each May 22nd, in public schools, as a matter of law.

 

[Flopper]

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

Contrary to popular belief in the US, you cannot have your marriage annulled in a court of law because it was not consummated. However, this is not true in all countries.

Marriages can be annulled if a spouse was physically and incurably impotent at the time of the marriage, unless the other spouse knew about the impotence. In the Catholic church a marriage not consummated is a marriage that's not confirmed and thus it could be annulled in the eyes of the church, however the legal marriage contract would still be binding.
Annulment Laws > Procedures > Nullification of Marriage

 

[Silhouette]

Personally, if I was an attorney trying this case at least as part of my pitch I would be claiming that LGBT is behavioral, that it is in fact a cult or cultural movement instead of a condition, and that as such these behaviors have no rights as a class based on sexual behaviors.

I'd probably start out making the 9 Justices watch The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It would be significant in proving my case that it's a cult. After all, that film was made when the cult was really beginning to feel its feet in the media. RHPS was the groundbreaking "in your face" media expression that went mainstream of cult values.

A quick recap of RHPS is that it is about a bisexual transvestite [covers all the bases in "LGBT"] who has a castle of sexual deviance. A normal hetero couple engaged to be married stumbles upon the castle during a rainstorm when they are stranded. The picture proceeds to feature Dr. Frankenfurter [bisexual transvestite] and his cohorts of deviants living with him at the castle all pitching in to "turn" this normal couple into sexual deviants like them and to abandon their vows to each other and their normal sexuality. The film ahem.."climaxes" with Dr. Frankenfurter creating a sexual pleasure boychild "monster" named "Rocky" who is innocent but who dr. Frankenfurter begins to exploit sexually for his jollies. His personal sex slave boy robot.

From there I'd probably show a powerpoint presentation of Harvey Milk. I'd show all the celebratory plaques, events, streets, postage stamps and such dedicated to his image as the LGBT messiah, essentially. Then I would show pictures of gay "pride" parades in full view of children. Then I'd show the laws in California requiring kids in public schools to celebrate him. I'd wrap up with excerpts from Milk's biography depicting his sexual appetite for orphaned teen boys on drugs, specifically.

Then as a final touch, I'd add in several manifestos of famous gay activists over the years saying how they took over the APA [and by extension, all the groups that cite the APA to make their own "medical" policies]. And how these activists profess and encourage their ranks to go after the ultimate goal: the destruction of mainstream values via hetero marriage and to crush religion at its foundation.

Stuff like that. I'd show it was a cult movement just like Jonestown unchecked. And at the end of all of it, I'd point out that Harvey Milk was a friend and vocal defender of Jim Jones.

 

[Flopper]

The key question with regards to Utah isn't about adults. It's about children. Pay close attention because you keep losing that key concept:

There is no denying the strong bonds of the natural biological child of two parents. A woman has the birth and pregnancy to foster this bond. A man sees his own eyes, chin, nose or hair on his infant and warmly regards him as "a chip off the old block". These two people, should they be in love, are the best two people in the world to raise that child. They see themselves in their child and part of that child; as one. That's why vows implore participants in marriage to stick by each other through thick and thin, to not forsake each other for another. It isn't for their benefit. It is for their children's benefit that this is so. Marriage is about children. It is society's insurance that children [future adult members] receive the best possible upbringing as a rule.

A society has a deeply vested interest in preserving this situation. Gays don't fit the bill. It is physically impossible. Wherease at least with barren hetero couples their pledge to each other doesn't conflict legally with the acme marital situation. The rule: one man and one woman. Gays have not qualified.....especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs.

Marriage is an incentive with perks. It's a reward for certain behaviors. Those behaviors are to be a man and a woman, coming together in love, in a bonded pair to reproduce and produce children who rely on their relationship to grow into fully fledged, well rounded and productive citizens. No marriage is perfect but the icon is preserved to encourage people to strive for that perfection, that gold ring, so that in so striving a child's chances of health and wellbeing are enhanced. Bestowing "marriage" upon two people of the same gender who regard sex as assisted masturbation and who revere and defend a child sex predator are not qualifying for Utah's standards for its children.

I know what the issue that is being made out here. But it simply isn't an issue.

You talk about the bond of two parents. Not an issue. The kids you're talking about aren't the kids who have two loving parents. They're the kids who need adopting, either the kids whose parents aren't together, or the kids who parents are abusive, or whatever the situation may be, it's not NORMAL in the sense you're making out.

You want these kids to go to a "normal" home, but are there enough? No is the simple answer in many cases.

You want to preserve this situation as if gay people not marrying other gay people will simply go "oh, well I'll just be straight then, and marry". Sorry, that doesn't exist. Gay people are gay whether you like it or not.

Allowing them to marry doesn't stop men and women marrying together, and it certainly doesn't stop them divorcing at a great rate like they do right now, more than one divorce for every two marriages in the US suggests they aren't doing a very good job of giving incentives for people to provide this secure home.

Surely they should be trying to give incentives for people to be knowledgeable when they go into relationships and want to have kids. Do they do this? Marriage isn't the incentive it used to be, people can get easy divorces.

"especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs."

This is a statement that doesn't make sense to me. As if all gay people support this guy. Do you think gay people just want to rape everyone? Come off it. Let's stick to the reality here.

Some gay people have adopted and abused children. Some straight people have adopted and abused children.
You want to stop gay people from adopting because some have abused, but you don't want to stop straight adults from doing so. Right!

Marriage is a reward for certain behaviours? Like what? Cheating on their wife? Beating their wife? What exactly?

You don't make loving couples through marriage. Seriously, you don't. Married couples who stay together for life and take care of their children don't do so because of marriage. They do so because this is what they want from life.

With the rate of divorce so high, many don't do this with marriage, and wouldn't do so without marriage.

You're looking in the wrong place if you want to help kids on this issue.

Especially with the right in the US making a massive hash of dealing with poverty.

Your case is that there is a backlog of orphans and as such we should relax the standards of which homes they fall into. Since your group venerates and holds as its messiah, a child sex predator; and your group refuses to denounce him but instead vigorously defends his behaviors, you are essentially saying "just loosen up and let the kiddies come into these homes".

And I say "no". It is better for a child to be raised supervised in a state home with oversight than turned loose into the dark recesses behind closed doors of people who are clearly demonstrative that they do not have children's best interests in mind.

So after all what gays are really after, according to you, in marriage is the access to adoptable children. I thought so. Their wishes, however, do not stand as grounds for Utah to be forced to dissolve her standard as to the best arrangement to call "married" [to entice with its perks] for people to gravitate towards. Your insistence is going to raise the issue of Harvey Milk. It may not be an issue now. But I suspect it will be if you keep pushing it. Which is fine. I'd like to hear gays defend their collective-reverence for Harvey Milk's actions towards orphaned teen boys in open court....and defend why they require children in California to venerate his sexuality as "the first openly gay politician" each May 22nd, in public schools, as a matter of law.

Harvey Milk was accused of being a sex predictor, although never arrested or convicted. Since some gays respect Harvey Milk for his achievements in gay rights, then as a group you believe lesbians and gays are lightly to be sex predators. Using your same logic, Jesus Christ was accused of blasphemy but never convicted so Christians who hold him up as the Messiah, are blasphemous. Those who respect Jerry Sandusky for his achievement on the football field also respect him for his sexual assault on children and thus are likely to assault children.

Your logic is seriously flawed because it's based on guilt by association. Furthermore the association has no connection to the assumed guilt.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So what you're saying is that Bill Clinton was actually telling the truth when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman" ????

 

[nodoginnafight]

So what you're saying is that Bill Clinton was actually telling the truth when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman" ????

and I get crickets in response ....

 

[Flopper]

So what you're saying is that Bill Clinton was actually telling the truth when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman" ????

????

 

[nodoginnafight]

I was referring to:

Sex is the biological function of reproduction. It is why our brains are hardwired to mount and thrust.

 

[Silhouette]

Harvey Milk was accused of being a sex predictor, although never arrested or convicted. Since some gays respect Harvey Milk for his achievements in gay rights, then as a group you believe lesbians and gays are lightly to be sex predators. Using your same logic, Jesus Christ was accused of blasphemy but never convicted so Christians who hold him up as the Messiah, are blasphemous. Those who respect Jerry Sandusky for his achievement on the football field also respect him for his sexual assault on children and thus are likely to assault children.

Your logic is seriously flawed because it's based on guilt by association. Furthermore the association has no connection to the assumed guilt.

Please show me after Jerry Sandusky was documented to have raped many young boys, where organized sports enthusiasts have dedicated streets in his name, sculptures, tried to name a navy ship after him and 60+ of those groups in the US, Mexico and Canada commissioned, successfully, a postage stamp of him.

I can show you in contrast, after documentation and publication no less how Harvey Milk sodomized many teen boys on drugs, LGBTs across the nation and the world erected statues to Milk, named streets after him, tried to name a navy ship after him and 60+ LGBT groups in the US, Canada & Mexico petitioned successfully to have a postage stamp made commemorating Milk, complete with their association, a rainbow "USA" at the top....and...*drum roll*...made laws in California requiring school kids to celebrate him every May 22nd..

See the difference? The random sports enthusiast here or there may twistedly still venerate what Jerry Sandusky did in his sports career. But you don't quite see the wholesale worship of the guy in such a public and conspicuous/defensive way as you do with Milk and LGBTers.

Even still, if the random sports enthusiast venerates Sandusky still, it's likely not for what his sexuality was. In stark contrast, again, LGBTers venerate Milk's sexuality; which again was sodomizing homeless teen boys on drugs. And they know this! And they require children to celebrate it as a matter of law, in public schools no less!

 

[Silhouette]

Still pushing the over population myth? Our problem is under population. Especially in the U.S., especially among middle class people, whose children are most likely to accomplish something.

Utah has an underpopulation problem, apparently or they fear it in the future which is a legitmate fear especially if the younger crowd will have to support the older ones' healthcare with taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what you're saying is that Bill Clinton was actually telling the truth when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman" ????

and I get crickets in response ....

Go tell your wife you got a blow job but its OK because it doesn't count as sex.

 

[Flopper]

Harvey Milk was accused of being a sex predictor, although never arrested or convicted. Since some gays respect Harvey Milk for his achievements in gay rights, then as a group you believe lesbians and gays are lightly to be sex predators. Using your same logic, Jesus Christ was accused of blasphemy but never convicted so Christians who hold him up as the Messiah, are blasphemous. Those who respect Jerry Sandusky for his achievement on the football field also respect him for his sexual assault on children and thus are likely to assault children.

Your logic is seriously flawed because it's based on guilt by association. Furthermore the association has no connection to the assumed guilt.

Please show me after Jerry Sandusky was documented to have raped many young boys, where organized sports enthusiasts have dedicated streets in his name, sculptures, tried to name a navy ship after him and 60+ of those groups in the US, Mexico and Canada commissioned, successfully, a postage stamp of him.

I can show you in contrast, after documentation and publication no less how Harvey Milk sodomized many teen boys on drugs, LGBTs across the nation and the world erected statues to Milk, named streets after him, tried to name a navy ship after him and 60+ LGBT groups in the US, Canada & Mexico petitioned successfully to have a postage stamp made commemorating Milk, complete with their association, a rainbow "USA" at the top....and...*drum roll*...made laws in California requiring school kids to celebrate him every May 22nd..

See the difference? The random sports enthusiast here or there may twistedly still venerate what Jerry Sandusky did in his sports career. But you don't quite see the wholesale worship of the guy in such a public and conspicuous/defensive way as you do with Milk and LGBTers.

Even still, if the random sports enthusiast venerates Sandusky still, it's likely not for what his sexuality was. In stark contrast, again, LGBTers venerate Milk's sexuality; which again was sodomizing homeless teen boys on drugs. And they know this! And they require children to celebrate it as a matter of law, in public schools no less!

Of course you will find memorials honoring Harvey Milk as the first openly gay politician and for his work that lead to passage of gay rights legislation. It is for that he is honored and for that he is revered by the LGBT community but that does not make them sexual predators. Throughout all your posts you have failed to show that the respect for Harvey Milk's accomplishments in fighting for gay rights has any bearing on gay marriage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your case is that there is a backlog of orphans and as such we should relax the standards of which homes they fall into. Since your group venerates and holds as its messiah, a child sex predator; and your group refuses to denounce him but instead vigorously defends his behaviors, you are essentially saying "just loosen up and let the kiddies come into these homes".

And I say "no". It is better for a child to be raised supervised in a state home with oversight than turned loose into the dark recesses behind closed doors of people who are clearly demonstrative that they do not have children's best interests in mind.

So after all what gays are really after, according to you, in marriage is the access to adoptable children. I thought so. Their wishes, however, do not stand as grounds for Utah to be forced to dissolve her standard as to the best arrangement to call "married" [to entice with its perks] for people to gravitate towards. Your insistence is going to raise the issue of Harvey Milk. It may not be an issue now. But I suspect it will be if you keep pushing it. Which is fine. I'd like to hear gays defend their collective-reverence for Harvey Milk's actions towards orphaned teen boys in open court....and defend why they require children in California to venerate his sexuality as "the first openly gay politician" each May 22nd, in public schools, as a matter of law.

First, it's not about relaxing the standards. It's about keeping the standards but realising that some gay couples can meet these standards.

Second, you say because there has been a case of a gay person who abused a child in his care that all gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. However you won't say that as straight couples have abused the child in their care we should stop adoptions by straight couples.
Double standards?

As for the language you are using the denounce ALL people who say gay couples could actually adopt and adopt well, you aren't helping yourself.

I agree, it's better to be in a state home than in a place where the people in their care don't have the children's best interests at heart.

However just trying to say all gay people are not going to have the best interests of the children at heart because of one person, is ridiculous. Straight couples sometimes don't have the best interests of the children at heart and adoption agencies should make sure, as much as possible that these people, no matter their sexuality, do not adopt.

You see, there isn't a right to adopt, because many people go through adoption agencies and are found wanting.

Oh, great.
Look, the case has been made that in Utah it's about the kids. The main way for gay people to get children is to adopt. I'm merely responding to your claims.

However, I do think there are gay couples out there who would be good at adopting and I wouldn't have a problem with this. Seeing as SINGLE people can adopt and have done well at this.

As for Harvey Milk. Did he try and adopt kids? I'm failing to see the relevance here.

He was a guy who pushed gay rights. And people have celebrated him for this.

There are also accusations that he raped underage boys. Was he ever convicted? No. However as often happens in politics people focus on one thing, and the legacy he had for gay rights is seen more than accusations made against him that will never end up in a court of law.

But still, what does it have to do with adoption? Nothing.

So why are you using this?

 

[OKTexas]

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

Contrary to popular belief in the US, you cannot have your marriage annulled in a court of law because it was not consummated. However, this is not true in all countries.

Marriages can be annulled if a spouse was physically and incurably impotent at the time of the marriage, unless the other spouse knew about the impotence. In the Catholic church a marriage not consummated is a marriage that's not confirmed and thus it could be annulled in the eyes of the church, however the legal marriage contract would still be binding.
Annulment Laws > Procedures > Nullification of Marriage

Hmm, learned something new, thanks.

 

[OKTexas]

So what you're saying is that Bill Clinton was actually telling the truth when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman" ????

Absolutely, by definition he engaged in an act of sodomy with that woman.

 

[Flopper]

Your case is that there is a backlog of orphans and as such we should relax the standards of which homes they fall into. Since your group venerates and holds as its messiah, a child sex predator; and your group refuses to denounce him but instead vigorously defends his behaviors, you are essentially saying "just loosen up and let the kiddies come into these homes".

And I say "no". It is better for a child to be raised supervised in a state home with oversight than turned loose into the dark recesses behind closed doors of people who are clearly demonstrative that they do not have children's best interests in mind.

So after all what gays are really after, according to you, in marriage is the access to adoptable children. I thought so. Their wishes, however, do not stand as grounds for Utah to be forced to dissolve her standard as to the best arrangement to call "married" [to entice with its perks] for people to gravitate towards. Your insistence is going to raise the issue of Harvey Milk. It may not be an issue now. But I suspect it will be if you keep pushing it. Which is fine. I'd like to hear gays defend their collective-reverence for Harvey Milk's actions towards orphaned teen boys in open court....and defend why they require children in California to venerate his sexuality as "the first openly gay politician" each May 22nd, in public schools, as a matter of law.

First, it's not about relaxing the standards. It's about keeping the standards but realising that some gay couples can meet these standards.

Second, you say because there has been a case of a gay person who abused a child in his care that all gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. However you won't say that as straight couples have abused the child in their care we should stop adoptions by straight couples.
Double standards?

As for the language you are using the denounce ALL people who say gay couples could actually adopt and adopt well, you aren't helping yourself.

I agree, it's better to be in a state home than in a place where the people in their care don't have the children's best interests at heart.

However just trying to say all gay people are not going to have the best interests of the children at heart because of one person, is ridiculous. Straight couples sometimes don't have the best interests of the children at heart and adoption agencies should make sure, as much as possible that these people, no matter their sexuality, do not adopt.

You see, there isn't a right to adopt, because many people go through adoption agencies and are found wanting.

Oh, great.
Look, the case has been made that in Utah it's about the kids. The main way for gay people to get children is to adopt. I'm merely responding to your claims.

However, I do think there are gay couples out there who would be good at adopting and I wouldn't have a problem with this. Seeing as SINGLE people can adopt and have done well at this.

As for Harvey Milk. Did he try and adopt kids? I'm failing to see the relevance here.

He was a guy who pushed gay rights. And people have celebrated him for this.

There are also accusations that he raped underage boys. Was he ever convicted? No. However as often happens in politics people focus on one thing, and the legacy he had for gay rights is seen more than accusations made against him that will never end up in a court of law.

But still, what does it have to do with adoption? Nothing.

So why are you using this?

Just like straight couples, gay and lesbians make good parents and bad parents. It's not the sex of the parents that's important, it's the couples dedication to doing a very hard job, raising children.

 

[Silhouette]

Just like straight couples, gay and lesbians make good parents and bad parents. It's not the sex of the parents that's important, it's the couples dedication to doing a very hard job, raising children.

What if your premise started out with "gays are part of a cultural movement based around learned deviant sexual behaviors; given sex is about reproduction".

If it was found that LGBTs were cult like and grouped around deviant behaviors...worshipping an icon, unaplogetically, who sodomized teen boys on drugs..that would change your statement.

The jury is still out on the above. And while it is, we err on the side of child safety.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just like straight couples, gay and lesbians make good parents and bad parents. It's not the sex of the parents that's important, it's the couples dedication to doing a very hard job, raising children.

What if your premise started out with "gays are part of a cultural movement based around learned deviant sexual behaviors; given sex is about reproduction".

If it was found that LGBTs were cult like and grouped around deviant behaviors...worshipping an icon, unaplogetically, who sodomized teen boys on drugs..that would change your statement.

The jury is still out on the above. And while it is, we err on the side of child safety.

What if, you are a total paranoid fruitcake? Could be you know, Mrs. Milk...

 

[Silhouette]

Just like straight couples, gay and lesbians make good parents and bad parents. It's not the sex of the parents that's important, it's the couples dedication to doing a very hard job, raising children.

What if your premise started out with "gays are part of a cultural movement based around learned deviant sexual behaviors; given sex is about reproduction".

If it was found that LGBTs were cult like and grouped around deviant behaviors...worshipping an icon, unaplogetically, who sodomized teen boys on drugs..that would change your statement.

The jury is still out on the above. And while it is, we err on the side of child safety.

What if, you are a total paranoid fruitcake? Could be you know, Mrs. Milk...

Should I report you for ad hominem or do you want to address the content of my post?

 

[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.

So you're certain Utah will be denied the "unquestioned authority" for its consensus to set standards for the privelege of marriage? And in related news, how long do you think the strategists of the LGBT cult can keep the cap on the full disclosure on Harvey Milk's behavior?

Utah's authority cannot contravene the 14th, so, yes, I am certain Utah loses.

There is no correlation of LGBT or hetero-fascist cults sodomizing children.

You are going to lose badly on this one.