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

[Seawytch]

Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

 

[Pop23]

Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

Meaning?

 

[Unkotare]

Also go to a gay linguistics source ...

Why am I not surprised that you would be so familiar with such 'sources'?

 

[Silhouette]

Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

Meaning?

Meaning this:

It's well established that homosexuality is not genetically determined. There is something else. Probably a chemical imbalance in the brain. That might explain homosexuals' greater incidence of violence, STDs, and suicide.

No, it is a learned/imprinted behavior that becomes compulsive with conditioning reward [orgasm]. After just a few such rewards, like lab rats, the human briain malleable in the adolescent years still, rewires itself to "prefer" [fill in the blank] stimulus to elicit orgasm. This well understood mechanism [imprinted behaviors] explains all the fetishes quite nicely. And that is because that puzzle piece has been exhaustively studied and proven in sceintific experiements. [You remember those, back when the APA used to rely on them to form conclusions?]

And in fact this imprinting is done daily across all warm blooded species to harvest semen from prized zoo and farm stud animals. You can imprint any sexual orientation you like in any animal you want by merely pairing certain objects or even the same gender, with the first few orgasmic episodes. From then on it's autopilot for the animal who from their own perspective would insist they were "born that way" ...so strong is the new artificial orientation. Surely homo sapiens isn't the sigular exception to this well known and industry-practiced rule?

Here is an excellent article on the phenomenon, well known and described, with over 300 studies cited in its bibliography to form its conclusions:

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

 

[Seawytch]

Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

Meaning?

Meaning exactly what it sounds like. One persons individual experience does not hold true for all. Lots of "I know a person" stories that don't mean shit.

 

[Pop23]

Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

Meaning?

Meaning exactly what it sounds like. One persons individual experience does not hold true for all. Lots of "I know a person" stories that don't mean shit.

You believe that some could be genetic and others not?

Just so I understand.

 

[Seawytch]

Meaning?

Meaning exactly what it sounds like. One persons individual experience does not hold true for all. Lots of "I know a person" stories that don't mean shit.

You believe that some could be genetic and others not?



Just so I understand.

No, I think we are ALL "born "that" way". Sexuality is much more fluid than our puritanical roots allow for.

Sexuality is a scale. You have people who are 100% on either side. Everyone else is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Pop23]

Meaning exactly what it sounds like. One persons individual experience does not hold true for all. Lots of "I know a person" stories that don't mean shit.

You believe that some could be genetic and others not?



Just so I understand.

No, I think we are ALL "born "that" way". Sexuality is much more fluid than our puritanical roots allow for.

Sexuality is a scale. You have people who are 100% on either side. Everyone else is somewhere in the middle.

Yet we are all governed by our makeup, our genes.

 

[Silhouette]

Yet we are all governed by our makeup, our genes.

Yep every human behavior is governed by genes. None of it is learned. Certainly not trying to reproduce with another man's anus. That's nature. That's genetics. No way it can be learned. Not even in Anne Heche's fickle case does gay not follow those concrete rules of DNA...

It explains perfectly why lipstick lesbians are attracted to all the trappings of a man in a woman. Yep. No hidden things to investigate there. The only thing that is real is a closeted homo. Closeted heteros are impossible in the homo population...lol..

Keep on dreamin' Keep on spinnin'

 

[Pop23]

Yet we are all governed by our makeup, our genes.

Yep every human behavior is governed by genes. None of it is learned. Certainly not trying to reproduce with another man's anus. That's nature. That's genetics. No way it can be learned. Not even in Anne Heche's fickle case does gay not follow those concrete rules of DNA...

It explains perfectly why lipstick lesbians are attracted to all the trappings of a man in a woman. Yep. No hidden things to investigate there. The only thing that is real is a closeted homo. Closeted heteros are impossible in the homo population...lol..

Keep on dreamin' Keep on spinnin'

Then cure the damn thing. Until you do, my theory remains valid.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Utah disagrees. Utah's position is that if you want the privelege of marriage, you have to earn it by having sex with a reproductive partner who at least has the potential or represents the icon of the desired pairing that will produce blood kin offspring. Those are the types of offspring most likely to receive the best chance at life with two married parents. So Utah cares who you sleep with when it comes to marriage. They want blood kin children out of the deal. They may not always get that with a barren couple who adopt. But at least that barren hetero couple doesn't muddy the legal description of who may marry.

The point is, as you know but are playing dumb at, is that gays will scream foul at this and will want to blanket themselves with the Constitution and the 14th to dismantle Utah's wishes for itself. And so we discuss what "gay" is and how their sexuality isn't innate. And we do this because being a behavior changes everything at the level of the 14th.

Please stop playing dumb that the question of innate vs behavioral is at the hub of all this.

Okay, so I ask again, is Utah going to ask those who want to get married if they can have children, if they want children and are they going to stop women who have gone through the menopause from getting married?

If not, then Utah doesn't actually care who straight people sleep with, they care who gay people sleep with, and you have to ask what sort of pervert does that.

No. I'm not playing dumb. Utah is trying to make get what it wants but knows the constitution doesn't allow it. So they're being creative.

This whole "it's about the children" nonsense it complete rubbish.
Why?

We have too many people on this planet. The US is currently seeing a natural increase of 1.4 million people a year. There is no reason to increase the population, in fact we should be looking to decrease it before war does us that favor in the future.

There is no issue about producing more children.

The ONLY reason they want to ban gay marriage is because they are filled with religious claptrap.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's well established that homosexuality is not genetically determined. There is something else. Probably a chemical imbalance in the brain. That might explain homosexuals' greater incidence of violence, STDs, and suicide.

No, it is a learned/imprinted behavior that becomes compulsive with conditioning reward [orgasm]. After just a few such rewards, like lab rats, the human briain malleable in the adolescent years still, rewires itself to "prefer" [fill in the blank] stimulus to elicit orgasm. This well understood mechanism [imprinted behaviors] explains all the fetishes quite nicely. And that is because that puzzle piece has been exhaustively studied and proven in sceintific experiements. [You remember those, back when the APA used to rely on them to form conclusions?]

And in fact this imprinting is done daily across all warm blooded species to harvest semen from prized zoo and farm stud animals. You can imprint any sexual orientation you like in any animal you want by merely pairing certain objects or even the same gender, with the first few orgasmic episodes. From then on it's autopilot for the animal who from their own perspective would insist they were "born that way" ...so strong is the new artificial orientation. Surely homo sapiens isn't the sigular exception to this well known and industry-practiced rule?

Here is an excellent article on the phenomenon, well known and described, with over 300 studies cited in its bibliography to form its conclusions:

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

I confused as to why you would give an article which doesn't deal with gay people specifically.

You claim something has been proven, but what they have published has nothing to do with proving gay people are attracted to people of the same sex.

This is being quite dishonest.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

Meaning?

Meaning exactly what it sounds like. One persons individual experience does not hold true for all. Lots of "I know a person" stories that don't mean shit.

Well, it does mean something. You can't dismiss individuals's experiences, however you also can't say one experience is everything.

It's called using sources to back up your argument. One source doesn't make proof.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Utah disagrees. Utah's position is that if you want the privelege of marriage, you have to earn it by having sex with a reproductive partner who at least has the potential or represents the icon of the desired pairing that will produce blood kin offspring. Those are the types of offspring most likely to receive the best chance at life with two married parents. So Utah cares who you sleep with when it comes to marriage. They want blood kin children out of the deal. They may not always get that with a barren couple who adopt. But at least that barren hetero couple doesn't muddy the legal description of who may marry.

The point is, as you know but are playing dumb at, is that gays will scream foul at this and will want to blanket themselves with the Constitution and the 14th to dismantle Utah's wishes for itself. And so we discuss what "gay" is and how their sexuality isn't innate. And we do this because being a behavior changes everything at the level of the 14th.

Please stop playing dumb that the question of innate vs behavioral is at the hub of all this.

Okay, so I ask again, is Utah going to ask those who want to get married if they can have children, if they want children and are they going to stop women who have gone through the menopause from getting married?

If not, then Utah doesn't actually care who straight people sleep with, they care who gay people sleep with, and you have to ask what sort of pervert does that.

No. I'm not playing dumb. Utah is trying to make get what it wants but knows the constitution doesn't allow it. So they're being creative.

This whole "it's about the children" nonsense it complete rubbish.
Why?

We have too many people on this planet. The US is currently seeing a natural increase of 1.4 million people a year. There is no reason to increase the population, in fact we should be looking to decrease it before war does us that favor in the future.

There is no issue about producing more children.

The ONLY reason they want to ban gay marriage is because they are filled with religious claptrap.

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/cases/...r_Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions_of_Law.pdf


Here is the recent ruling from the Michigan case where the Federal Judge held a trial so that evidence the State presented could be evaluated based on "it's for the children".


They didn't do so well.



>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yet we are all governed by our makeup, our genes.

Yep every human behavior is governed by genes. None of it is learned. Certainly not trying to reproduce with another man's anus. That's nature. That's genetics. No way it can be learned. Not even in Anne Heche's fickle case does gay not follow those concrete rules of DNA...

It explains perfectly why lipstick lesbians are attracted to all the trappings of a man in a woman. Yep. No hidden things to investigate there. The only thing that is real is a closeted homo. Closeted heteros are impossible in the homo population...lol..

Keep on dreamin' Keep on spinnin'

When I was a kid, I knew I wasn't gay. I just knew it. Why? I wasn't old enough to know about these things.

And I've seen kids who were in the same situation and you kind of knew they were gay.

 

[Seawytch]

Utah disagrees. Utah's position is that if you want the privelege of marriage, you have to earn it by having sex with a reproductive partner who at least has the potential or represents the icon of the desired pairing that will produce blood kin offspring. Those are the types of offspring most likely to receive the best chance at life with two married parents. So Utah cares who you sleep with when it comes to marriage. They want blood kin children out of the deal. They may not always get that with a barren couple who adopt. But at least that barren hetero couple doesn't muddy the legal description of who may marry.

The point is, as you know but are playing dumb at, is that gays will scream foul at this and will want to blanket themselves with the Constitution and the 14th to dismantle Utah's wishes for itself. And so we discuss what "gay" is and how their sexuality isn't innate. And we do this because being a behavior changes everything at the level of the 14th.

Please stop playing dumb that the question of innate vs behavioral is at the hub of all this.

Okay, so I ask again, is Utah going to ask those who want to get married if they can have children, if they want children and are they going to stop women who have gone through the menopause from getting married?

If not, then Utah doesn't actually care who straight people sleep with, they care who gay people sleep with, and you have to ask what sort of pervert does that.

No. I'm not playing dumb. Utah is trying to make get what it wants but knows the constitution doesn't allow it. So they're being creative.

This whole "it's about the children" nonsense it complete rubbish.
Why?

We have too many people on this planet. The US is currently seeing a natural increase of 1.4 million people a year. There is no reason to increase the population, in fact we should be looking to decrease it before war does us that favor in the future.

There is no issue about producing more children.

The ONLY reason they want to ban gay marriage is because they are filled with religious claptrap.

Ah but Frig...it will be partly about the children...our children.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children. There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

~ Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah but Frig...it will be partly about the children...our children.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children. There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

~ Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

There's not problem with it being "partly about the children".

If you allow marriage, it can add stability to some kids's lives. It makes no difference if that is with or without gay marriage.
You have gay marriage because it serves another function of society, equality, rights, freedoms, govt staying out of your business.

So some old man doesn't seem to like children living with same sex couples. Perhaps he would prefer them in single parent families instead, because that's a pure example of stability and a great environment for the children.

You're doing a great job of advocating making divorce illegal, by the way.

As for humiliation, it would only be humiliating for those kids who really think there is a problem because old men tell them that this is wrong. If the old men stopped doing this, then the kids wouldn't be humiliated, would they?

Also, may kids are humiliated by the parents, even if they are together in a loving relationship and don't scream at each other. Oh no, what do we do?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

Meaning?

Meaning that subjective, anecdotal ‘evidence’ is legally irrelevant, and cannot be used to ‘justify' denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Utah disagrees. Utah's position is that if you want the privelege of marriage, you have to earn it by having sex with a reproductive partner who at least has the potential or represents the icon of the desired pairing that will produce blood kin offspring.

Then Utah’s position is wrong, and it will lose based on the fact that marriage is not a ‘privilege’ but a right, where the state may not seek to deny that right predicated on whether a couple – same- or opposite-sex – has the capacity to procreate:

The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation.

Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949)

Consequently, to seek to apply dissimilar treatment to same- and opposite-sex couples who are similarly situated in their inability to have children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

Utah disagrees. Utah's position is that if you want the privelege of marriage, you have to earn it by having sex with a reproductive partner who at least has the potential or represents the icon of the desired pairing that will produce blood kin offspring.

Then Utah’s position is wrong, and it will lose based on the fact that marriage is not a ‘privilege’ but a right, where the state may not seek to deny that right predicated on whether a couple – same- or opposite-sex – has the capacity to procreate:

situated in their inability to have children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A fallacy combined with a red herring! Perfect liberal post.

Marriage is a privilege. That's why you get a license. Anything that is a right does not require a permit or license.
No one has said marriage is predicated on the ability to have children. The reason the state favors heterosexual marriage is because such marriages tend in the majority to produce children. Homosexual "marriages" do not.