Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

No... I am only noting the authority and appealing to the relevant facts intrinsic to that authority, and the specifics wherein sound reason recognizes that those facts govern every specific aspects of reality, wherein the immutable laws established by such, govern every aspect of the creation, including human behavior.

You've already said that an appeal to authority only works if the logic and reason of an argument stand. And the logic and reason of your argument don't stand. As there are valid and demonstrable contradictions to your standard that your reasoning can't resolve. And these contradictions undermine your fundamental assumptions regarding both your argument, and the authority you're appealing to.

Rendering both invalid as a basis of conclusion.

 

[Skylar]

Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.

Oh, I'm fully familiar with how babies are made. I just don't accept your assertion that marriage serves only the purpose of procreation. But recognize instead that there is more than one valid purpose in marriage, and that the purpose has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

And I can demonstrably prove it with the valid marriages of infertile couples.

Which simply destroys your entire argument.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?

Again, nature doesn't say anything about the 'exclusive purpose of marriage', you do.

Nature actually does 'say' it... This being so because to 'say' is to 'express' and nature expresses such through the inherent design of human physiology.

It's not even a debatable point, with your obtuse refusal to recognize that, notwithstanding.

I'm happy to entertain your drivel as long as you like. We can take this thread to a million pages. And I will happily meet your petitio principii adnauseum, as many times as you care to circle it back around.

But you long ago lost this debate. And that is not going to change... It would not change it if the entire world peeked in here and declared throughout humanity that you are right and I wrong.

Ya see scamp... Sound reason does not require validation, as its validity is inherent... .

The fact is that your goal here, is to advance deceit, through fraudulent reasoning, as a means to influence the ignorant. These, we know to be the fundamental tenets of EVIL. Thus, I've little choice but to bounce you around this room until you can't remember which way you were heading when ya got here. This because I am advocating on behalf of the Creator of the Universe, thus bear his blessing and as such I cannot be defeated... and you advocate for evil... which cannot reap victory.

So... we're just biding time until we find in this exercise, the same result that has passed through time in memorial. Which is fine with me, as I have plenty of time.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No... I am only noting the authority and appealing to the relevant facts intrinsic to that authority, and the specifics wherein sound reason recognizes that those facts govern every specific aspects of reality, wherein the immutable laws established by such, govern every aspect of the creation, including human behavior.

You've already said that an appeal to authority only works if the logic and reason of an argument stand. And the logic and reason of your argument don't stand. As there are valid and demonstrable contradictions to your standard that your reasoning can't resolve. And these contradictions undermine your fundamental assumptions regarding both your argument, and the authority you're appealing to.

Rendering both invalid as a basis of conclusion.

Sadly, for your position... you claiming that my reasoning doesn't stand, has no actual bearing on the standing of every single one of the points on which I have stood.

The coolest part of text forums, is that the debate is in writing. So these little denials don't actually do anything.

The record is as clear as it is indisputable.

Here... allow me to provide you, "The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality", the opportunity to prove it.

Now you have asserted that my reasoning does not stand. This discussion is hundreds of pages long, thus the evidence is extensive, in terms of what has actually taken place.

From that cache of evidence, find a specific example of even ONE of the points upon which I have stood... which must be sourced with a valid link, wherein you can reasonably show that my point failed due to its inherent, and fatal flaw(s).

Best of luck to you... and yes... when you fail to do so... which is a 100% certainty, with the highest likelihood being that you'll fail in terms of 'specifics' or you'll offer a point and claim it failed, based entirely upon your own subjective NEED for that point to have failed, but with no actual fact or reasoning which will otherwise constitute a flaw of any kind.

Now ... GO!

 

[Syriusly]

Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas. But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs

Redacted, huh? Can you back that claim up? I've heard of sermons being subpenas being issued for the sermons. But I've never heard that they were redacted. Or that there was an attempt to do so.

Which by the way- seems incredibly bizarre and I think that mayor is going to get slapped down big time for attempting to subpoena sermons.

 

[Syriusly]

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?

The standards themselves are arbitrary, as there's no function the standard satisfies that is required for a valid marriage.

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such. The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.

Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING... from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.

Nothing could BE >LESS< arbitrary and MORE > OBJECTIVE< ... .

Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause. It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.

And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries of less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.

Now HOW COOL IS THAT?

Bat guano crazy

 

[Syriusly]

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?

Again, nature doesn't say anything about the 'exclusive purpose of marriage', you do.

Nature actually does 'say' it... This being so because to 'say' is to 'express' and nature expresses such through the inherent design of human physiology.

It's not even a debatable point, with your obtuse refusal to.

More bat guano craziness....Nature doesn't say anything about marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.

Oh, I'm fully familiar with how babies are made... .

Let the record reflect, that in the post which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality quoted as the specific subject of its response, there is no reference, whatsoever, to procreation (how babies are made).

The response is yet another example of the deceitful nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

 

[Syriusly]

That's your personal opinion. I've found the judiciary's reasoning to be both consistent and logical.

.

Justices shouldn't pander to ass-kissers. But you've got a point. They probably do.

But your point on the Judiciary being consistent and logical neglects to point out that most of the lower courts quite obviously have not read Windsor 2103.

On the contrary- the lower courts have repeatedly referred to Windsor- and repeatedly cite Windsor- and

From the Wisconsin decision:

To the extent Romer and Lawrence left any room for doubt whether the claims in this
case raise a substantial federal question, that doubt was resolved in United States v.
Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), in which the Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage
Act, a law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages authorized under state law.
Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had
discussed at length the continuing vitality of Baker and the majority had concluded over a
vigorous dissent that Baker was no longer controlling. Compare Windsor v. United States,
699 F.3d 169, 178-79 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Even if Baker might have had resonance for
Windsor's case in 1971, it does not today.”), with id. at 210 (Straub, J., dissenting)
(“Subjecting the federal definition of marriage to heightened scrutiny would defy or, at least,
call into question the continued validity of Baker, which we are not empowered to do.”). On
appeal before the Supreme Court, those defending the law continued to press the issue,
arguing that the lower court’s rejection of Baker as precedent made “the case for this Court's
review . . . overwhelming.” Windsor v. United States of America, Nos. 12-63 and 12-307,
Supplemental Brief for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of
Representatives, available at 2012 WL 5388782, at *5-6.

In addition the Court addressed your argument- referring to Windsor

Windsor is closer to the mark, but not by much. It is true that the Supreme Court
noted multiple times in its decision that the regulation of marriage is a traditional concern
of the states. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689-90 (“By history and tradition the definition and
regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within
the authority and realm of the separate States.”); id. at 2691 (“[R]egulation of domestic
relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States.”) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, the Court noted that the Defense of
Marriage Act departed from that tradition by refusing to defer to the states’ determination
of what qualified as a valid marriage. Id. at 2692 (“DOMA, because of its reach and extent,
departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.”).
However, defendants’ and amici’s reliance on Windsor is misplaced for three reasons.

First, the Supreme Court’s observations were not new; the Court has recognized for many
years that the regulation of marriage is primarily a concern for the states. In his dissent,
Justice Scalia noted this point and questioned the purpose of the Court’s federalism
discussion. Id. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“But no one questions the power of the States
to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the
point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is?”).
Thus, it would be inappropriate to infer that the Court was articulating a new, heightened
level of deference to marriage regulation by the states

Second, the Court declined expressly to rely on federalism as a basis for its conclusion
that DOMA is unconstitutional. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2692 (“t is unnecessary to decide
whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it
disrupts the federal balance.”). See also id. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[T]he opinion
has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism.”). But see id. at 2697
(Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (“t is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.”).

Third, and most important, the Court discussed DOMA’s encroachment on state
authority as evidence that the law was unconstitutional, not as a reason to preserve a law that
otherwise would be invalid. In fact, the Court was careful to point out multiple times the
well-established principle that an interest in federalism cannot trump constitutional rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.

Oh, I'm fully familiar with how babies are made... .

Let the record reflect, that in the post which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality quoted as the specific subject of its response, there is no reference, whatsoever, to procreation (how babies are made).

The response is yet another example of the deceitful nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

Keys appears to be going even more bat guano crazy than usual.

He is talking to himself- and calling himself deceitful.

Bizarre.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?

The standards themselves are arbitrary, as there's no function the standard satisfies that is required for a valid marriage.

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such. The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.

Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined... from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.

Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .

Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause. It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.

And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.

Now HOW COOL IS THAT?

 

[Silhouette]

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such. The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.

Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined... from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.

Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .

Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause. It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.

And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.

Now HOW COOL IS THAT?

Why is it freedom and liberties always devolve into doing sex acts in front of or with kids? Gay pride parades, Harvey Milk.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such. The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.

Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined... from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.

Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .

Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause. It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.

And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.

Now HOW COOL IS THAT?

Why is it freedom and liberties always devolve into doing sex acts in front of or with kids? Gay pride parades, Harvey Milk.

Well, such is the nature of evil, of course... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So again... When the day comes that a 'newbee' comes along and asks the inevitable question: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments, please bookmark this thread, so that you can link that individual to a first class example of what winning an argument looks like, as you answer that query through a profound "OH Hell yes! .... ."

Thank you all for your time and attention in considering this matter.

 

[dblack]

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.

You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.

Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.

Regardless of what they said, the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.

Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.

Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.

Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.

Its not hair splitting.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.

Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.

They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!

So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?

 

[Seawytch]

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.

You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.

Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.

Regardless of what they said, the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.

Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.

Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.

Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.

Its not hair splitting.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.

Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.

They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!

So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?

Fight ALL of them to your hearts content...just don't bitch because SOME protect gays TOO.

 

[dblack]

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.

You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.

Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.

Regardless of what they said, the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.

Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.

Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.

Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.

Its not hair splitting.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.

Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.

They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!

So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?

Fight ALL of them to your hearts content...just don't bitch because SOME protect gays TOO.

I'm not. I'm using the policy to highlight our continued drift toward corporatism and away from true equal rights.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.

You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.

Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.

Regardless of what they said, the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.

Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.

Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.

Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.

Its not hair splitting.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.

Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.

They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!

So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?

Fight ALL of them to your hearts content...just don't bitch because SOME protect gays TOO.

Bitch?

Not sure I follow your reasoning.

I contest the deceit expressed which hold subjective NEED as the basis of one's RIGHTS. This is fraudulent reasoning, which seeks to hide from the ignorant, the true basis of their rights.


This is a thing which is to be protected FROM... not to BE PROTECTED. As "IT" is a lethal strain of reasoning which threatens the very fabric of Freedom itself.


So... where any homosexual understands that and turns from the spurious reasoning which will as surely destroy their means to exercise their rights, as it will everyone else's... I have contest with them. As what one does in the privacy of their home, is their business, and it is business in which I have absolutely no interest.

 

[Silhouette]

I contest the deceit expressed which hold subjective NEED as the basis of one's RIGHTS. This is fraudulent reasoning, which seeks to hide from the ignorant, the true basis of their rights.
This is a thing which is to be protected FROM... not to BE PROTECTED. As "IT" is a lethal strain of reasoning which threatens the very fabric of Freedom itself.


So... where any homosexual understands that and turns from the spurious reasoning which will as surely destroy their means to exercise their rights, as it will everyone else's... I have contest with them. As what one does in the privacy of their home, is their business, and it is business in which I have absolutely no interest.

Well put. This is an incomplete sexual fetish cult seeking to overthrow the Will of the majority: to remove the power of their vote. Behaviors are always regulated, outside religion. Since LGBT has not applied for tax-exempt status, they are merely a cult, a collective of people who identify themselves by sexual fetish behaviors. If behaviors repugnant to the majority are allowed to dictate to it and overthrow their vote, then democracy has ceased to exist. There would be no other means to deny other behaviors repugnant to the majority their right to overthrow regulation of what they do.

SCOTUS's blindness to this teeters on a magnitude of legal malpractice and gross negligence of duties that is almost shocking to consider.

 

[Silhouette]

I see that the LGBT crew tries to nudge the poll numbers down from 83% and when they do, they just keep creeping back up again as more and more people vote on the biggest poll ever at USMB.

What does that REALLY say about the public's alleged "in favor of" gay marriage? This is a huge turnout with a huge result. Yes, it's not a topic that polling lends accurate results to. There are just some things people will never discuss in a public setting. They wait for the voting booth instead.

*crickets*....