Oklahoma/Utah 10th Circuit May Lean To State Choice On Gay Marriage

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas engages in false equivalencies.

The issue is about human equality not restrooms.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas engages in false equivalencies.

The issue is about human equality not restrooms.

That's a lie, it's about reordering our society based on emotions, not science, if we did that every time someone gets their feelings hurt there would be ciaos.

 

[Seawytch]

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treating them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.

What? That doesn't make any sense. You think gay people want to be "treated" like the opposite gender than what they are? What does it mean to you to treat a woman like a man or a man like a woman? See, under the law there should be no difference in the way I'm "treated" regardless of gender.

So I should be able to use the womens facilities without repercussions? There are many social restrictions on gender are they all discriminatory?

Probably...wait until the court challenges. Irrelevant.

 

[Silhouette]

What? That doesn't make any sense. You think gay people want to be "treated" like the opposite gender than what they are? What does it mean to you to treat a woman like a man or a man like a woman? See, under the law there should be no difference in the way I'm "treated" regardless of gender.

So I should be able to use the womens facilities without repercussions? There are many social restrictions on gender are they all discriminatory?

Probably...wait until the court challenges. Irrelevant.

The whole idea of gender blending isn't "irrelevant". It is the central and core issue around which all the debates revolve. The core question is, do we want a society where there are no distinctions AT ALL between male and female? That would defy biology at such a fundamental level that you're really asking for trouble.

For instance, with the males accessing women's bathrooms and showers. Rape will be on the increase. Men cannot stare at naked women or be around naked women or half naked women and not be overcome with the urge to mate with them. It's biology. And the gender blending does not jibe with the biology of actual reality.

 

[OKTexas]

Two questions:

1. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee that each and every breathing person may legally marry anyone of their choosing?

Within reason. We ended the practice of 65-yo's marrying 14-yo's, but the Ninth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to marry who they want.
Ninth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

and

2. Where in the Constitution or more recently in its interpretation in Windsor is it said that feds get to decide who may marry, outside of Loving v Virginia...which was about race and NOT sexual behaviors?

The Constitution says that the Federal government and the Church may not decide who can and cannot marry because the Federal government is forbidden by the US Constitution from discriminating against Americans over non-criminal reasons and the Church is forbidden from having outdated dogma instituted as American law. Polygamy is not a sexual behavior. Having multiple sexual partners is a sexual behavior, but marrying multiple partners brings increased legalities into the equation that are unnecessary for the success of the institution of marriage. Polygamy is a strictly religious establishment and therefore cannot be made into law according to the First Amendment.

And technically the free exercise clause protects polygamist religious beliefs. What is the compelling governmental interest in preventing it that couldn't apply to gay marriage?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treating them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.

Bullshit is not understanding what Equal Before the Law means. In this case two consenting adults versus two other consenting adults.

Actually men are being treated equal and women are being treated equal, are you saying single sex bathrooms and locker rooms are discrimination?

Yes, they discriminate based upon the general appearance of genitals, and most are okay with that. From a genetic standpoint, we already have men (XY) in the women's bathrooms, only they look like women. The same is true in the bathroom where they, mostly, pee standing up. Biology, it's not what you were taught.

Interesting enough, even before gay marriage was legal in many states, we already had men married to men and women married to women, if you are looking at their genetics that is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Two questions:

1. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee that each and every breathing person may legally marry anyone of their choosing?

Within reason. We ended the practice of 65-yo's marrying 14-yo's, but the Ninth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to marry who they want.
Ninth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

and

2. Where in the Constitution or more recently in its interpretation in Windsor is it said that feds get to decide who may marry, outside of Loving v Virginia...which was about race and NOT sexual behaviors?

The Constitution says that the Federal government and the Church may not decide who can and cannot marry because the Federal government is forbidden by the US Constitution from discriminating against Americans over non-criminal reasons and the Church is forbidden from having outdated dogma instituted as American law. Polygamy is not a sexual behavior. Having multiple sexual partners is a sexual behavior, but marrying multiple partners brings increased legalities into the equation that are unnecessary for the success of the institution of marriage. Polygamy is a strictly religious establishment and therefore cannot be made into law according to the First Amendment.

And technically the free exercise clause protects polygamist religious beliefs. What is the compelling governmental interest in preventing it that couldn't apply to gay marriage?

At the moment we limit marriage to two adults, one marriage at a time. When we have applied that to all, we need to look at why we don't allow for three or more? One step at a time eh?

 

[GreenBean]

Right, equality, women that want to be treated like men and men that want to be treated like women, according to you, treating them as the people they are is mistreating them. Sorry, that's bullshit.

What? That doesn't make any sense. You think gay people want to be "treated" like the opposite gender than what they are? What does it mean to you to treat a woman like a man or a man like a woman? See, under the law there should be no difference in the way I'm "treated" regardless of gender.

So I should be able to use the womens facilities without repercussions? There are many social restrictions on gender are they all discriminatory?

Tex - it doesn't work that way - you're a heterosexual man - you have no rights -

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What? That doesn't make any sense. You think gay people want to be "treated" like the opposite gender than what they are? What does it mean to you to treat a woman like a man or a man like a woman? See, under the law there should be no difference in the way I'm "treated" regardless of gender.

So I should be able to use the womens facilities without repercussions? There are many social restrictions on gender are they all discriminatory?

Tex - it doesn't work that way - you're a heterosexual man - you have no rights -

Just keep lying to yourself boys. That's why you keep losing elections...

 

[Silhouette]

At the moment we limit marriage to two adults, one marriage at a time. When we have applied that to all, we need to look at why we don't allow for three or more? One step at a time eh?

Two things:

1. Why do we limit marriage to two adults? In your words please. Don't cite the law because remember, you're on a crusade to change it in the name of "equality". Don't discriminate against more than two you bigot.

and

2. Your cult argues that there is no such thing as "the slippery slope" all day long and calls anyone who brings it up a "hater", "homophobe" "irrational" etc. So what's all this about "One step at a time.."? eh?

Just keep lying to yourself boys. That's why you keep losing elections...

Um..only 3 states have voted in gay marriage. In California, the LGBT cult LOST in BOTH ballot initiatives one right after another where marriage was affirmed to limit to "a man and a woman". You think you can just lie about shit and if you do it enough with enough venom and brash that that will substitute for the truth eh? "Fake it till you make it". Only you've only "made it" in 3 states. And my guess is that once the citizens of those three states figure out what this Harvey Milk cult is all about, there may be some recission going on even there at the ballot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

At the moment we limit marriage to two adults, one marriage at a time. When we have applied that to all, we need to look at why we don't allow for three or more? One step at a time eh?

Two things:

1. Why do we limit marriage to two adults? In your words please. Don't cite the law because remember, you're on a crusade to change it in the name of "equality". Don't discriminate against more than two you bigot.

and

2. Your cult argues that there is no such thing as "the slippery slope" all day long and calls anyone who brings it up a "hater", "homophobe" "irrational" etc. So what's all this about "One step at a time.."? eh?

Just keep lying to yourself boys. That's why you keep losing elections...

Um..only 3 states have voted in gay marriage. In California, the LGBT cult LOST in BOTH ballot initiatives one right after another where marriage was affirmed to limit to "a man and a woman". You think you can just lie about shit and if you do it enough with enough venom and brash that that will substitute for the truth eh? "Fake it till you make it". Only you've only "made it" in 3 states. And my guess is that once the citizens of those three states figure out what this Harvey Milk cult is all about, there may be some recission going on even there at the ballot.

1. Because we do.
2. Because there's no cult, and it's an invalid argument.
3. Because your guesses are as insane as the tiny mind that produced them.

 

[Silhouette]

You personally are in favor of denying more than two consenting adults in love to marry? Because it's illegal, right?

There is a cult who punishes heretics and evangelizes rabidly. It isn't some secret you know.

Just ask Phil Robertson, Anne Heche, Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, the Mozilla guy and the Chick fil-a guy. They were all burned at the stake for heresy. Some of them survived. Some didn't. Some even got more popular than before. Go figure. I guess it's that old California Prop 8 syndrome where the gay-reported numbers don't quite add up to reality..

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas engages in false equivalencies.

The issue is about human equality not restrooms.

That's a lie, it's about reordering our society based on emotions, not science, if we did that every time someone gets their feelings hurt there would be ciaos.

It's about your emotions, not that of society.

And, yes, it is going to change, and you are still going to be OK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

At the moment we limit marriage to two adults, one marriage at a time. When we have applied that to all, we need to look at why we don't allow for three or more? One step at a time eh?

Two things:

1. Why do we limit marriage to two adults? In your words please. Don't cite the law because remember, you're on a crusade to change it in the name of "equality". Don't discriminate against more than two you bigot.

and

2. Your cult argues that there is no such thing as "the slippery slope" all day long and calls anyone who brings it up a "hater", "homophobe" "irrational" etc. So what's all this about "One step at a time.."? eh?

Just keep lying to yourself boys. That's why you keep losing elections...

Um..only 3 states have voted in gay marriage. In California, the LGBT cult LOST in BOTH ballot initiatives one right after another where marriage was affirmed to limit to "a man and a woman". You think you can just lie about shit and if you do it enough with enough venom and brash that that will substitute for the truth eh? "Fake it till you make it". Only you've only "made it" in 3 states. And my guess is that once the citizens of those three states figure out what this Harvey Milk cult is all about, there may be some recission going on even there at the ballot.

Sil, (1) you don't get to ask questions until you answer them, and (2) the only cult on this issue is yours.

 

[JoeB131]

You personally are in favor of denying more than two consenting adults in love to marry? Because it's illegal, right?

There is a cult who punishes heretics and evangelizes rabidly. It isn't some secret you know.

Just ask Phil Robertson, Anne Heche, Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, the Mozilla guy and the Chick fil-a guy. They were all burned at the stake for heresy. Some of them survived. Some didn't. Some even got more popular than before. Go figure. I guess it's that old California Prop 8 syndrome where the gay-reported numbers don't quite add up to reality..

Okay, let's look at your list.

Phil Robertson- sadly, still around,s till saying crazy shit like God caused 9/11 because he didn't like the gay.

Anne Heche- Wait. Wasn't she Ellen's girlfriend? Her career went south because she made a series of really bad movies.

Kirk Cameron- I think he destroyed his credibility when he became spokessman for creationist nutbags.

Piers MOrgan- his ratings sucked. It wasn't just the gays who weren't watching him.

Brendon Eich lost his job because people were abadoning his product.

Dan Cathy didn't because all the hateful bubba rednecks decided to start stuffing their faces with his artery clogging chicken. This could possibly work out.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, (1) you don't get to ask questions until you answer them, and (2) the only cult on this issue is yours.

I'll ask what I please when I please..

I'll be sure to tell the burned-at-the-stake victims Phil Robertson, Anne Heche, Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, the Mozilla guy and the Chick fil-A guy that the LGBT cult isn't on an inquisition. It will be news to them.. And news to all those politicians previously opposed strongly to gay marriage who "suddenly, magically, overnight" had a "complete change of heart".

Observers know the symptoms of blackmail. Your herd is starting to turn from sheep to goats. Too bad because goats watch every move you make with a keen eye and are impossibly hard to herd. They scatter different ways and one of them always slips by you, headbutts the gate open and the whole lot of them get out.

So many careers to burn, so little time! You'd better get busy. Isnt' there any political figure you could be blackmailing right about now?

 

[bodecea]

Sil, (1) you don't get to ask questions until you answer them, and (2) the only cult on this issue is yours.

I'll ask what I please when I please..

I'll be sure to tell the burned-at-the-stake victims Phil Robertson, Anne Heche, Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, the Mozilla guy and the Chick fil-A guy that the LGBT cult isn't on an inquisition. It will be news to them.. And news to all those politicians previously opposed strongly to gay marriage who "suddenly, magically, overnight" had a "complete change of heart".

Observers know the symptoms of blackmail. Your herd is starting to turn from sheep to goats. Too bad because goats watch every move you make with a keen eye and are impossibly hard to herd. They scatter different ways and one of them always slips by you, headbutts the gate open and the whole lot of them get out.

So many careers to burn, so little time! You'd better get busy. Isnt' there any political figure you could be blackmailing right about now?

Such victims...such a tragedy.

 

[Silhouette]

Such victims...such a tragedy.

Wait until the thought police come to tie you to a stake. Piers Morgan comes to mind here. He stuck up for the cult of LGBT but dared to ask a delusional man who was pretending to be a woman, if he was still male.

His heresy cost him his career. And he was one of the faithful. For a cult whose dogma on the surface appears to be "sexual freedom", Anne Heche sure payed the price for feeling free to return to heterosexuality.. Apparently with LGBT ist verboten to use that door but only in one direction..

You ilk are hypocrites. Your religion is evident. Your tactics make the early days of the 3rd Reicht look tame in comparison..

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ridiculous. This is like watching a guy standing on a soap box squealing, "THE END IS COMING!" and ranting about aliens coming to rescue him riding Haley's Comet.

 

[Silhouette]

Ridiculous. This is like watching a guy standing on a soap box squealing, "THE END IS COMING!" and ranting about aliens coming to rescue him riding Haley's Comet.

Actually, if you note the title of the thread it is not one of "doom and gloom" from my perspective at least. Have you pondered fully what will be the case if states are left to decide on gay marriage?

Ponder it. And while you're pondering, consider that outfits opposed to male/male female/female pairs trying to role-play "husband and wife" "father and mother" in "marriages" also possess advertising money. They can buy ad time just prior to elections. Perhaps an ad on Harvey Milk's sexual career? Tie-ins to the LGBT support of his sexual career. Close your eyes. You can envision it right? How many votes do you think that will get you in any given state in support of gay anything?

The end may be coming I think. Just not in the way you're thinking about.