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

[Seawytch]

Other than it is biologically impossible for them to be like the rest of us. No amount of talk will change that.

Oh? And how is a gay man different biologically than a straight man?

The point was, two gay men or women are incapable, biologically, of functioning like a normal married couple.

Um, yes we most certainly can...and do.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, name the state, county, city or municipality that requires procreation as a prerequisite for civil marriage.

Show me anywhere I said any place did, hint, I didn't. I said they require biologically compatible individuals, as in one man one woman. Now where did I get it wrong?

 

[jillian]

So gays are special, they can't be restricted to marriage to the opposite sex like every one else. Like I've always said, they have equal rights, they want special treatment because of their mental disorder.

allowing them to marry like everyone else isn't being "special"... it is having the same rights as everyone else.

not quite sure why that's so confusing.

unless, of course, you get up every day having to decide between whether you're attracted to men or to women.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh? And how is a gay man different biologically than a straight man?

The point was, two gay men or women are incapable, biologically, of functioning like a normal married couple.

Um, yes we most certainly can...and do.

I'm sorry, mutual masturbation doesn't count.

 

[OKTexas]

So gays are special, they can't be restricted to marriage to the opposite sex like every one else. Like I've always said, they have equal rights, they want special treatment because of their mental disorder.

allowing them to marry like everyone else isn't being "special"... it is having the same rights as everyone else.

not quite sure why that's so confusing.

unless, of course, you get up every day having to decide between whether you're attracted to men or to women.

You're the one confused if you think they don't already have the same rights I do.

 

[bendog]

oh? And how is a gay man different biologically than a straight man?

the point was, two gay men or women are incapable, biologically, of functioning like a normal married couple.

um, yes we most certainly can...and do.

i don't need to know this! (-: In fact, as an Episcopalian spike, I choose not to. I simply wish to sip my martini in private ... with my wife on the FAR far side of the living room.

 

[OKTexas]

Marriage is a right, under Griswold, as was asserted. All rights may be restricted if there's a valid reason. the problem you're having is there's no good reason to not allow gays to marry like the rest of us.

Other than it is biologically impossible for them to be like the rest of us. No amount of talk will change that.

Actually, that's not true. People are married despite various medical / psych conditions that make "traditional" intercourse impossible.

I realize the legitimacy of your position requires you assert illegitimate (-: "facts," but nonetheless, your views have been scientifically repudiated time and again. Try for something new. Like, actually supporting your prejudices with facts.

Really, when did they prove human biology wrong? I don't think I got the memo. Also just because some one does not use the required parts for what ever reason does not alter their intended functions and is irrelevant to this discussion. Now try to deflect and say it is, yada yada yada.

 

[bendog]

Other than it is biologically impossible for them to be like the rest of us. No amount of talk will change that.

Actually, that's not true. People are married despite various medical / psych conditions that make "traditional" intercourse impossible.

I realize the legitimacy of your position requires you assert illegitimate (-: "facts," but nonetheless, your views have been scientifically repudiated time and again. Try for something new. Like, actually supporting your prejudices with facts.

Really, when did they prove human biology wrong? I don't think I got the memo. Also just because some one does not use the required parts for what ever reason does not alter their intended functions and is irrelevant to this discussion. Now try to deflect and say it is, yada yada yada.

intended function? So no one must be attempting procreation. And now deflect to yeda ayad yaada

Or just go read genesis and flake out.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, that's not true. People are married despite various medical / psych conditions that make "traditional" intercourse impossible.

I realize the legitimacy of your position requires you assert illegitimate (-: "facts," but nonetheless, your views have been scientifically repudiated time and again. Try for something new. Like, actually supporting your prejudices with facts.

Really, when did they prove human biology wrong? I don't think I got the memo. Also just because some one does not use the required parts for what ever reason does not alter their intended functions and is irrelevant to this discussion. Now try to deflect and say it is, yada yada yada.

intended function? So no one must be attempting procreation. And now deflect to yeda ayad yaada

Or just go read genesis and flake out.

Really, you bring up genesis, tell me, who did Josh and Ronnie beget?

 

[KNB]

Who did Adam and Eve beget?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gay people are biological creations, proven by the fact that there have been gay people in every culture across the globe since the beginning of civilization.

Alexander the Great was bi-sexual, Theodore Roosevelt wore a dress until he was 6 years old, J Edgar Hoover wore a dress as an adult, and RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. There were gay Greeks who created democracy, gay Egyptians and Chinese who created writing and mathematics, gay artists, musicians, teachers, leaders, etc. throughout time on every continent.

How is homosexuality not biological?

It's psychological, as in mental disorder. you know where the brain disagrees with the biology of the body.

There is clearly no biological basis for homosexuality. People have done studies of identical twins where one was gay and one straight. If it were determined at birth that would be impossible. Now there might be some kind of brain imbalance or something, but no one knows.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

No, most of the states say that. For sure the ones petitioning with Utah in this case say it. Would they amount to 10s of millions of people? I think that's about how many are saying it, give or take.

If marriage wasn't a privelege then polygamists, incest, minors, anyone could get legally married. But that's not the case, is it? And your basis for only including LGBTs as people who want a special "right" to marry is? What again? Belligerence? The ability to be shrill, nagging or forceful?

Marriage is a right, under Griswold, as was asserted. All rights may be restricted if there's a valid reason. the problem you're having is there's no good reason to not allow gays to marry like the rest of us.

It's not a right under Grsiswold, which dealt with a right to privacy.
If it is a right, then states have the power to regulate it, not the federal government.
And the reaqson to limit it has been stated repeatedly here.

 

[The Rabbi]

OKTexas, name the state, county, city or municipality that requires procreation as a prerequisite for civil marriage.

Straw man, already dispensed with.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who did Adam and Eve beget?

Sons and daughters.
Next.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OKTexas, name the state, county, city or municipality that requires procreation as a prerequisite for civil marriage.

Show me anywhere I said any place did, hint, I didn't. I said they require biologically compatible individuals, as in one man one woman. Now where did I get it wrong?

There are 17 states and the District of Columbia that don't require "biological compatibility" (per your definition) and is not required for Federal recognition. They recognize Civil Marriage irregardless of gender of the two consenting adults.

So your definition of "biological comparability" isn't required.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

OKTexas, name the state, county, city or municipality that requires procreation as a prerequisite for civil marriage.

Show me anywhere I said any place did, hint, I didn't. I said they require biologically compatible individuals, as in one man one woman. Now where did I get it wrong?

There are 17 states and the District of Columbia that don't require "biological compatibility" (per your definition) and is not required for Federal recognition. They recognize Civil Marriage irregardless of gender of the two consenting adults.

So your definition of "biological comparability" isn't required.


>>>>

^^
Democratic fallacy in action.

 

[OKTexas]

Gay people are biological creations, proven by the fact that there have been gay people in every culture across the globe since the beginning of civilization.

Alexander the Great was bi-sexual, Theodore Roosevelt wore a dress until he was 6 years old, J Edgar Hoover wore a dress as an adult, and RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. There were gay Greeks who created democracy, gay Egyptians and Chinese who created writing and mathematics, gay artists, musicians, teachers, leaders, etc. throughout time on every continent.

How is homosexuality not biological?

It's psychological, as in mental disorder. you know where the brain disagrees with the biology of the body.

There is clearly no biological basis for homosexuality. People have done studies of identical twins where one was gay and one straight. If it were determined at birth that would be impossible. Now there might be some kind of brain imbalance or something, but no one knows.

Just like I said, gay is a mental disorder and according to Gloria Steinem it can be overcome by education and social pressure, just like the innate differences between men and women.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's psychological, as in mental disorder. you know where the brain disagrees with the biology of the body.

There is clearly no biological basis for homosexuality. People have done studies of identical twins where one was gay and one straight. If it were determined at birth that would be impossible. Now there might be some kind of brain imbalance or something, but no one knows.

Just like I said, gay is a mental disorder and according to Gloria Steinem it can be overcome by education and social pressure, just like the innate differences between men and women.

They've got a problem with this.
If it is not a mental disorder, then it is a choice they make. ANd a bad one.
If it is a mental disorder then it needs to be labeled a disease and treated.

 

[KNB]

What is the reason to prohibit gay marriage if it's not based on religious doctrine, biology, procreation, or civil rights?

What the fuck are you Teabaggers arguing against? Really? Who cares if two gay people get married? Your Bible is shit and does not have any power over ANY state law, no matter how Christians vote for it. That's the Constitution that you Teabaggers claim to love so much. That's the very FIRST Amendment. The first words of the First Amendment, "Congress (state legislatures) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This means that 100% of Conservative Christians can vote for a law based on Biblical scripture mumbo jumbo, but it doesn't mean that that law is legal because it prohibits the freedom of others. Why do you people not understand this?

Scientifically speaking, two women can have a baby without male sperm, so that would mean that a lesbian couple would be a "two-parent household" with their own biological child, and therefore protected under the right-wing's argument of marriage being about biology. You have to protect the biology of that lesbian couple just the same as any hetero couple, otherwise the law is unfair.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Lesbian couples 'could have own baby'

What exactly is the right-wing argument against same-sex marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

What is the reason to prohibit gay marriage if it's not based on religious doctrine, biology, procreation, or civil rights?

What the fuck are you Teabaggers arguing against? Really? Who cares if two gay people get married? Your Bible is shit and does not have any power over ANY state law, no matter how Christians vote for it. That's the Constitution that you Teabaggers claim to love so much. That's the very FIRST Amendment. The first words of the First Amendment, "Congress (state legislatures) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This means that 100% of Conservative Christians can vote for a law based on Biblical scripture mumbo jumbo, but it doesn't mean that that law is legal because it prohibits the freedom of others. Why do you people not understand this?

Scientifically speaking, two women can have a baby without male sperm, so that would mean that a lesbian couple would be a "two-parent household" with their own biological child, and therefore protected under the right-wing's argument of marriage being about biology. You have to protect the biology of that lesbian couple just the same as any hetero couple, otherwise the law is unfair.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Lesbian couples 'could have own baby'

What exactly is the right-wing argument against same-sex marriage?

You were fondled by the priests a lot when you were a kid, right?