So now that same sex marriage is a legal right...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can say the court made it up, they applied the constitution

LOL! NO... The Scotus did not apply to the Constitution, they made reference to it, then simply made up conclusions which could not have possible been drawn from any words set forth in the US Constitution.

There is no fundamental right to marry. That point alone is absurd on its face. There's absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution which so much as suggests such. A Dad can't marry his child, Siblings can't marry, can't marry outside of species.

Now... help me to demonstrate to to you in a way you can understand, by letting you prove it.

>> Using the Reasoning set forth by the SCOTUS, tell the Reader the legal basis for denying a Parent a license to marry their Child, or to deny siblings marriage or to deny the old spinster the 'right' to marry her cats.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LMAO Hardly, it's a queer law.

They think that it's their in to make Christianity illegal, and will open up adoption to them. It's all about getting the youngsters.

Homosexual does not equal pedophile.

Sexual deviancy does indeed = Pedophilia. Homosexuality not only deviates from the human sexual standard, Homosexuality deviates as FAR FROM the human sexual standard as such can be deviated, where the subjects at issue REMAIN HUMAN! Meaning that to get to homosexuality you must deviate BEYOND Pedophilia... .

Be homosexual means that you have absolutely no concern for human sexual boundaries. If a man will engage in sexual behavior with another man, there's no reason to believe that where it becomes attracted to a child that it will resist that temptation any more than it resisted the other.

Homosexuality is worse than pedophilia? I'd hate to see your closet.

Oh...So you feel that pedophilia is worse than homosexuality?

Ok. I'll bite.

What are you basing that conclusion upon?

Homosexuals engage in relationships between two consenting adults, relationships entitled to Constitutional protections.

Pedophilia does not involve two consenting adults, it concerns children as victims of adult criminals – the two are completely dissimilar, where attempting to associate the two fails as a false comparison fallacy, in addition to being unfounded demagoguery and fear-mongering.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You can say the court made it up, they applied the constitution

LOL! NO... The Scotus did not apply to the Constitution, they made reference to it, then simply made up conclusions which could not have possible been drawn from any words set forth in the US Constitution.

There is no fundamental right to marry. That point alone is absurd on its face. There's absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution which so much as suggests such. A Dad can't marry his child, Siblings can't marry, can't marry outside of species.

Now... help me to demonstrate to to you in a way you can understand, by letting you prove it.

>> Using the Reasoning set forth by the SCOTUS, tell the Reader the legal basis for denying a Parent a license to marry their Child, or to deny siblings marriage or to deny the old spinster the 'right' to marry her cats.

Obviously you haven't read the ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have posted such ignorance.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Gay Marriage...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

You argue like a mental patient.

Well, I guess you'd be the expert in that arena.

But, more likely is you're transferring your love for my argument into your own experiences... and no one blames you for that, Gilligan. Why wouldn't you?

 

[HappyJoy]

You can say the court made it up, they applied the constitution

LOL! NO... The Scotus did not apply to the Constitution, they made reference to it, then simply made up conclusions which could not have possible been drawn from any words set forth in the US Constitution.

There is no fundamental right to marry. That point alone is absurd on its face. There's absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution which so much as suggests such. A Dad can't marry his child, Siblings can't marry, can't marry outside of species.

Now... help me to demonstrate to to you in a way you can understand, by letting you prove it.

>> Using the Reasoning set forth by the SCOTUS, tell the Reader the legal basis for denying a Parent a license to marry their Child, or to deny siblings marriage or to deny the old spinster the 'right' to marry her cats.

Why would I use the reasoning set forth by SCOTUS about incestuous relationships, pedophilia and bestiality?

I get it, you literally can't tell the difference between these different (to put it very loosely) relationships. That's your problem to deal with. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

There is no fundamental right to marry. .

There is fundamental Constitutional right to equal protection under the law,

so once a State establishes marriage as a civil union, the citizens of that state are equally entitled to enter into that union,

regardless of gender.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They think that it's their in to make Christianity illegal, and will open up adoption to them. It's all about getting the youngsters.

Homosexual does not equal pedophile.

Sexual deviancy does indeed = Pedophilia. Homosexuality not only deviates from the human sexual standard, Homosexuality deviates as FAR FROM the human sexual standard as such can be deviated, where the subjects at issue REMAIN HUMAN! Meaning that to get to homosexuality you must deviate BEYOND Pedophilia... .

Be homosexual means that you have absolutely no concern for human sexual boundaries. If a man will engage in sexual behavior with another man, there's no reason to believe that where it becomes attracted to a child that it will resist that temptation any more than it resisted the other.

Homosexuality is worse than pedophilia? I'd hate to see your closet.

Oh...So you feel that pedophilia is worse than homosexuality?

Ok. I'll bite.

What are you basing that conclusion upon?

Homosexuals engage in relationships between two consenting adults, relationships entitled to Constitutional protections.

Pedophilia does not involve two consenting adults, it concerns children as victims of adult criminals – the two are completely dissimilar, where attempting to associate the two fails as a false comparison fallacy, in addition to being unfounded demagoguery and fear-mongering.

OH!

So you're saying that Pedophilia is ILLEGAL... and because Homosexuality is LEGAL, anything that is ILLEGAL would, from your perspective, be worse. And that's because a person of the male gender who has sex with a minor child of the same gender, has broken the law, thus they're a criminal who has victimized a child.

Oh now that is a fascinating perspective.

You know, it occurs to me that Homosexuality has only been legal for a few years.

Tell, me... when homosexual sex was illegal, which of the homosexual adults was the victim when those two criminals engaged in sex? Probably the black one, right? But what if they were both white? Who's the victim then?

Also, back then was Illegal Homosexual Sex worse than the illegal pedophile sex?

If not, why not... if so, why so?

(The Reader will find that this element of the discussion is about to dry up... )

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[

There is no fundamental right to marry. .

There is fundamental Constitutional right to equal protection under the law,

so once a State establishes marriage as a civil union, the citizens of that state are equally entitled to enter into that union,

regardless of gender.

Well Ok Gilligan... So you're saying then that IN YOUR MIND, as YOU UNDERSTAND THE JUDICIALLY FOUNDED "LAW"... wherein "THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY"

THUS YOU NOW SUPPORT A PARENT MARRYING THEIR CHILD?

Reader... it MAY be a full 24 hours since SCOTUS Licensed Degeneracy... and already the Homo-cult is declaring that:

Parents can marry their Child.​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same sex marriage is marriage.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can say the court made it up, they applied the constitution

LOL! NO... The Scotus did not apply to the Constitution, they made reference to it, then simply made up conclusions which could not have possible been drawn from any words set forth in the US Constitution.

There is no fundamental right to marry. That point alone is absurd on its face. There's absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution which so much as suggests such. A Dad can't marry his child, Siblings can't marry, can't marry outside of species.

Now... help me to demonstrate to to you in a way you can understand, by letting you prove it.

>> Using the Reasoning set forth by the SCOTUS, tell the Reader the legal basis for denying a Parent a license to marry their Child, or to deny siblings marriage or to deny the old spinster the 'right' to marry her cats.

Why would I use the reasoning set forth by SCOTUS about incestuous relationships, pedophilia and bestiality?

I get it, you literally can't tell the difference between these different (to put it very loosely) relationships. That's your problem to deal with. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?

SCOTUS said that there is a fundamental right to marry... did they not?

(Reader do you see how the reasoning applied by SCOTUS has already resulted in a paradox? The Court determined that there is a fundamental right to marry. Thus using the same reasoning as such is required to provide for homosexuals to enter marriage: There is a fundamental right to marry and because we license heterosexuality, we must license all sexual expression... . Daddy is sexually attracted to his daughter, then the SCOTUS declared that they have a right to marry and a proponent of homosexual pretense can't bring itself to believe that the SCOTUS did so..., so now, it must come to either accept that which is instinctively knows is wrong, or continue to reject it, which is now understands is can't because it's the same principle that allowed the homosexuals... )

Now... all that remains to do, to bring the catastrophe into full view is to identify the singular point which sits between minor child and those who's sexuality provides them to prefer sex with the innocent, young, tight skinned partners.

And let's begin, shall we?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why would I use the reasoning set forth by SCOTUS about incestuous relationships, pedophilia and bestiality?

Joy, you began this discussion by pointing out that the Law had been changed so that Homosexuals can marry.

So, that tells us that you understand that Laws can and are sometimes changed.

I mean just look at the laws regarding homosexuality.

Homosexuality was just a few decades ago recognized as a mental disorder, then... sufficient homosexuals came to be present among the group that 'decides' these things and then there was a vote... and in the space of that one vote, Homosexuality was NOT a Mental Disorder.

Then there was the LEGAL STATUTES; which is to say actual LAW that provided for serious punishment for people caught engaging in homosexual sex... and THOSE LAWS were changed, not by the Legislators, but by the COURT, who didn't write and debate legislation through a vote of individuals representing the people, these were jurists, who like the APA board, were just of the mind that those laws needed to be changed... and PRESTO they're GONE!

Joy, do you know why pedophilia is illegal?

Please answer that question for the board... "Why is Pedophilia Illegal?"

 

[Skylar]

[

There is no fundamental right to marry. .

There is fundamental Constitutional right to equal protection under the law,

so once a State establishes marriage as a civil union, the citizens of that state are equally entitled to enter into that union,

regardless of gender.

Well Ok Gilligan... So you're saying then that IN YOUR MIND, as YOU UNDERSTAND THE JUDICIALLY FOUNDED "LAW"... wherein "THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY"

THUS YOU NOW SUPPORT A PARENT MARRYING THEIR CHILD?

Reader... it MAY be a full 24 hours since SCOTUS Licensed Degeneracy... and already the Homo-cult is declaring that:

Parents can marry their Child.​

Huh? Dude, are you okay? Because even by your standards, that's gibberish.'

The only one who has said that a parent can marry their child....is you. Citing you. Talking to yourself.

 

[HappyJoy]

OH!

So you're saying that Pedophilia is ILLEGAL... and because Homosexuality is LEGAL, anything that is ILLEGAL would, from your perspective, be worse. And that's because a person of the male gender who has sex with a minor child of the same gender, has broken the law, thus they're a criminal who has victimized a child.

Not exactly. I'm flat out saying pedophilia is a crime against a victim who either is not old enough to give consent or quite literally doesn't give consent. What that has to do with the legality of homosexuality rests between your ears only.

Oh now that is a fascinating perspective.

It's creepy on your part, that's for sure.

You know, it occurs to me that Homosexuality has only been legal for a few years.

So?

Tell, me... when homosexual sex was illegal, which of the homosexual adults was the victim when those two criminals engaged in sex? Probably the black one, right? But what if they were both white? Who's the victim then?

Two guys or girls of legal age having consensual sex, who is the victim? It's like asking me who is the victim when I'm cited for jay walking. It's a stupid question with an obvious answer.

Also, back then was Illegal Homosexual Sex worse than the illegal pedophile sex?

In my view it is. I can't help it if you don't see the difference between a victim and victimless crime.

If not, why not... if so, why so?

You my friend are a pretzel of logic.

(The Reader will find that this element of the discussion is about to dry up... )

I'm sure after your post their genitalia sure as hell did.

 

[Skylar]

Same sex marriage is marriage.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In all 50 states. Exactly as I told you it would be.

 

[Skylar]

OH!

So you're saying that Pedophilia is ILLEGAL... and because Homosexuality is LEGAL, anything that is ILLEGAL would, from your perspective, be worse. And that's because a person of the male gender who has sex with a minor child of the same gender, has broken the law, thus they're a criminal who has victimized a child.

Not exactly. I'm flat out saying pedophilia is a crime against a victim who either is not old enough to give consent or quite literally doesn't give consent. What that has to do with the legality of homosexuality rests between your ears only.

You've essentially summed up all of Keyes' arguments. He argues pure relativism. Where he is his own source. His own audience. And claims to speak for everything from his opponents to nature to god.

We don't even need to be here. As Keyes is both sides of his own argument

 

[Katzndogz]

Pedophilia is illegal because there is a law against it. Laws can be changed and even repealed.

The age of consent itself is arbitrary and exists no place outside of the statute book. The age of consent can be lowered as necessary in new printings.

 

[HappyJoy]

Pedophilia is illegal because there is a law against it. Laws can be changed and even repealed.

Or invalidated by the Supreme Court. What does that have to do with gay marriage specifically?

The age of consent itself is arbitrary and exists no place outside of the statute book. The age of consent can be lowered as necessary in new printings.

And?

 

[Skylar]

Pedophilia is illegal because there is a law against it. Laws can be changed and even repealed.

Its illegal because it causes harm to children. And a child can't offer consent.

Homosexuality between consenting adults doesn't hurt kids. And is inherently consensual.

And honestly, who the fuck are you trying to convince? The only people that would buy the 'pedophilia = homosexuality' bullshit are your fellow bigots. For any rational person its an argument so intellectually void and loathsome that it actually turns off people that might be inclined to agree with you on issues of same sex marriage.

No wonder opposition to gays is dying off. Their opponents have shit arguments.

 

[Katzndogz]

Same sex marriage is marriage.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In all 50 states. Exactly as I told you it would be.

Every one expected this legal ruling. The effect is exactly the same as if the justices had ruled that all dogs are cats and must be treated as cats.

In other words, a legal ruling that cannot change reality.

 

[HappyJoy]

Same sex marriage is marriage.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In all 50 states. Exactly as I told you it would be.

Every one expected this legal ruling. The effect is exactly the same as if the justices had ruled that all dogs are cats and must be treated as cats.

In other words, a legal ruling that cannot change reality.

Except all those gay people getting married and stuff.

First same-sex marriage license issued in South Dakota

Same-Sex Couple Marries in Dallas After Landmark Supreme Court Ruling NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth