Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

And now you're getting down to why the gay marriage opponents have so consistently lost in court. They can't bring up their real reasons for opposing gay marriage in a court of law; religious opposition. As one journalist so deftly put it, there's no legal precedent created by the case Yahweh v. Sodom.

Leaving gay marriage opponents with middling second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even casual review of the facts.

Real reason:

CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..

Maybe it's time for pro-traditional folks to make judges watch "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and put up posters with these characters [or far far worse in many cases but USMB won't allow me to post those pride pictures here] in open court while their arguments are being made. It would be very hard for an "impartial" judge to sit staring at a life-sized poster with these displays while he hears compelling testimony from adoption agencies explaining how legalizing this cult's "cultural pride" into marriage would mean they would have no defense to disquality them as potential "parents" for their orphan wards in their charge.

I'd think THAT might make a difference in court.

 

[Skylar]

CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..

Children aren't a requirement of marriage. No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.

 

[Silhouette]

CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..

Children aren't a requirement of marriage. No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.

Tell that to the judge Skylar. Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".

Go ahead. Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard. I dare you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..

Children aren't a requirement of marriage. No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.

Tell that to the judge Skylar. Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".

Go ahead. Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard. I dare you.

You changed her words SIL, she didn't say "children don't matter" she said "children aren't a requirement". Two very different things.

Not one State in the union requires any couple to have children to become married, individuals that are known to be infertile and can't have children, and certain couples are required to provide proof in a court of law showing they CANNOT have children prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry.

Children are not a requirement of Civil Marriage in any State, therefore to attempt to hold one group to a standard that is irrelevant to disqualify another group, who in all other respects qualify, with no compelling government interest - is a violation of the principal of equal treatment under the law.


*************************

And if you had bothered to actually read and understand the Appeals Court decisions that very logic was BOLDLY presented in the briefings and (in the case I listened to) in oral arguments when questioned.

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..

Children aren't a requirement of marriage. No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.

Tell that to the judge Skylar. Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".

Go ahead. Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard. I dare you.

If the judges are so compelled by your argument that gays marriage is so harmful to children, why then do they keep ruling against gay marriage bans? Surely you've stood in open court, again and again, and offered your 'its about the children' argument.

Clearly it didn't convince them. What do they know that you don't?

 

[Skylar]

Children are not a requirement of Civil Marriage in any State, therefore to attempt to hold one group to a standard that is irrelevant to disqualify another group, who in all other respects qualify, with no compelling government interest - is a violation of the principal of equal treatment under the law.

Exactly. Either the 'children are a requirement' standard applies to everyone, or no one. And under the law of every state in the Union, it applies to no one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, Sil should not, "You changed her words SIL, she didn't say "children don't matter" she said "children aren't a requirement".

Don't cheat, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Children aren't a requirement of marriage. No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.

That's what Skylar said. I quoted his actual words. Then I said:

Tell that to the judge Skylar. Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".

Go ahead. Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard. I dare you.

Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?

And more to the point of this thread is the point of orphaned children. Orphans have custodians called "adoption agents". Many of these orphanges and their agents are part of religious institutions. Catholics would be #1 of these. Gay marriage will force these institutions and agencies to either close adoption to non-followers or allow children into homes where two "parents" are two gay people role-playing "mom and dad" to their ward's predictable detriment. Which is a core violation of their faith. This is how gay marriage is harmful. It's a pebble dropped in a pond whose waves will hit many legal shores people refuse to extrapolate at the present moment for the sake of avoiding being beat up, political-correctness [which is to say "avoiding being beaten up"] or for reasons of political expediency.

And none of those reasons are good enough to justify putting kids into situations we know and predict will be harmful to them. Not to mention a legal situation where churches cannot practice the essence of their faith as a matter of secular law forbidding them from doing so.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?

My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?

 

[Seawytch]

Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?

My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?

Well duh...they're gay (see icky)

 

[Skylar]

Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?

My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?

Well duh...they're gay (see icky)

Ah, the Icky Standard. Set in 'U.S. V Snakes and Snails and Puppy Dog Tails (1983)'. I'm pretty sure that was overturned in 'E. Bunny Vs. L.N. Monster' about 7 or 8 years ago.

 

[Seawytch]

Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?

My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?

Well duh...they're gay (see icky)

Ah, the Icky Standard. Set in 'U.S. V Snakes and Snails and Puppy Dog Tails (1983)'. I'm pretty sure that was overturned in 'E. Bunny Vs. L.N. Monster' about 7 or 8 years ago.

Bastard. Coca cola out the shnoz!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darn those case precedents!

 

[RKMBrown]

And now you're getting down to why the gay marriage opponents have so consistently lost in court. They can't bring up their real reasons for opposing gay marriage in a court of law; religious opposition. As one journalist so deftly put it, there's no legal precedent created by the case Yahweh v. Sodom.

Leaving gay marriage opponents with middling second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even casual review of the facts.

Real reason:

CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..

Maybe it's time for pro-traditional folks to make judges watch "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and put up posters with these characters [or far far worse in many cases but USMB won't allow me to post those pride pictures here] in open court while their arguments are being made. It would be very hard for an "impartial" judge to sit staring at a life-sized poster with these displays while he hears compelling testimony from adoption agencies explaining how legalizing this cult's "cultural pride" into marriage would mean they would have no defense to disquality them as potential "parents" for their orphan wards in their charge.

I'd think THAT might make a difference in court.

How many times are you gonna post your gay pride family photos?

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?

My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?

Children are integral to marriage. One cannot discuss marriage without considering that this is the main venue in which children spend their formative psychological years. When you place children in homes where the adults are participants in a culture that gets 100% behind lewd deviant sex acts in public, soberly, as a matter of "pride" where they expect, hope and invite children to watch and participate, the issue of how relevent children are to this legal discussion bumps up to first place.

You cannot intellectually or legally divorce children from ANY conversation about the definition of marriage. You're saying you can. And what I'm saying is that shows a marked addition to the criminally-negligent refusal of LGBT culture adherants to the wellbeing and considerations of children and their formative lives..

 

[Skylar]

Children are integral to marriage.

Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies to no one. And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.

Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment.

 

[Kosh]

Children are integral to marriage.

Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies to no one. And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.

Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment.

Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..

 

[Skylar]

Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to explain *how* it is debunked. Don't tell us. Show us. Make your argument.

 

[Kosh]

Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to explain *how* it is debunked. Don't tell us. Show us. Make your argument.

You have made it for me. That is the part you do not get!

 

[Skylar]

Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to explain *how* it is debunked. Don't tell us. Show us. Make your argument.

You have made it for me. That is the part you do not get!

Translation: even you can't make your argument work. My claims stand unrefuted. Hell, you have yet to even disagree with me.

Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies to no one. And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.

Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment.