Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let the record reflect that the use of the word bigotry, is by definition: Bigotry.

Let the record reflect that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Really?

Well let's test that:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted.

Oh my... that doesn't sound good.

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others; the manifestation of bigotry.

Wow~ that sounds just awful. I wouldn't want anyone to think of me like that.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Hmm... So, let's see now. Referring to another as a bigot, would be a demonstration of an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of the person who is being 'called' a bigot.

So, as noted above and in refutation of Skylars most recent tragic overestimation of its intellectual means, it turns out that the use of Bigot, Bigoted and Bigotry... is by definition: Bigotry.

ROFL! Go figure...

 

[Skylar]

Let the record reflect that the use of the word bigotry, is by definition: Bigotry.

Let the record reflect that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Really?

Well let's test that:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted.

Oh my... that doesn't sound good.

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others; the manifestation of bigotry.

Wow~ that sounds just awful. I wouldn't want anyone to think of me like that.

First off, I have no idea where you get your definitions. Here's the actual definition of a bigot:

Bigot:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person;especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Bigot Definition of bigot by Merriam-Webster

With you having described gays as 'loathed ' 'despised' and 'abhorred', and calling for the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals', that would certainly meet the description of a bigot.

Hmm... So, let's see now. Referring to another as a bigot, would be a demonstration of an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of the person who is being 'called' a bigot.

Says who? You assume one must be a bigot to apply the label of bigot. But you've presented nothing to back that assumption but to state it.

Um....you stating your opinion isn't evidence that your opinion must be right. That's circular reasoning. As your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing. That's also the Begging the Question fallacy, as you've offered your personal opinion as fact. Which, of course, it isn't.

Is this the part where you start making up 'etymological roots' of words, pulled from your imagination while ignoring the dictionary? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We are not a majoritarian democracy like Hamas rules Gaza.

We must protect the minority if we are going to protect all of us.

Isn't it cool how easy it is to tell when the Homo-cult is feeling less popular?

Their comments set themselves as the eternal victim of a tyrannical majority that is stifling their freedom to exercise their Government provided right, to force others to accept their degeneracy or face the consequence of "THE LAW!".

This contrasted against the other side wherein 150% of the worlds population supports Homosexuality with most people actually preferring it to sexual normality...

Then there's the patient accepting homo-cult, like ya see on HBO and Will & Grace. Contrasted against the militant not-so-patient Homo-cult that ruins innocent people who simply preferred to not celebrate their debauchery.

Clearly lol' Snarkey there is not feelin' particularly popular right now... LOL! And ya can't blame it for THAT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First off, I have no idea where you get your definitions.

Clearly... (That's how you came to be so pitifully ignorant.)

 

[Skylar]

A marriage requires license... thus only those who are qualified within the scope of that license are qualified for such.

With the qualifications themselves being required to meet constitutional muster. As Loving v. Virginia demonstrated when interracial couples were unable to get a marriage license in the State of Virginia as they didn't meet the 'qualification' of marriage.

The qualifications were found to be unconstitutional. And thus, any law that uses those qualifications was also unconstitutional. The courts are addressing similar questions regarding the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples, in relation to the 14th amendment.

The ruling is days away.

The Cult ANSA is that only THEY have any business deciding what marriage means and they represent at most 3% of the population.

The obvious problem with your reasoning being that you don't care the percentage of the population that supports a definition of marriage. IF a state votes in same sex marriage, you reject it. If the courts affirm same sex marriage is constitutionally valid, you reject it. If 60% of the US population supports same sex marriage, you reject it.

Your only standard is yourself. And you're 0.000000003% of the population. Yet you consider yourself authoritative over all people, cultures and history.

Alas, you citing you isn't our basis of any law nor the objective standard of anything. Rendering your personal opinion effectively irrelevant to this entire process.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says who?

ROFLMNAO!

I see you've modified that power house "Says YOU!" that you've done so well with lately.

LOL! That's adorable.

 

[Skylar]

We are not a majoritarian democracy like Hamas rules Gaza.

We must protect the minority if we are going to protect all of us.

Isn't it cool how easy it is to tell when the Homo-cult is feeling less popular?

Their comments set themselves as the eternal victim of a tyrannical majority that is stifling their freedom to exercise their Government provided right, to force others to accept their degeneracy or face the consequence of "THE LAW!".

Eternal? You're confused.

Same sex couples have already achieved their goal of same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States. And within a matter of days, 50 of 50 states.

'Eternal' lasts far more than a matter of days.

 

[Skylar]

Says who?

ROFLMNAO!

I see you've modified that power house "Says YOU!" that you've done so well with lately.

LOL! That's adorable.

Smiling....and predictably you abandon your every argument and ignore all contradictory evidence. As if by ignoring it, it all magically disappears. Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Here's the actual definition of a bigot:

Bigot:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person;especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Bigot Definition of bigot by Merriam-Webster

With you having described gays as 'loathed ' 'despised' and 'abhorred', and calling for the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals', that would certainly meet the description of a bigot.

Do you have anything beyond your own circular reasoning, citing yourself as the dictionary and the begging the question fallacy to back your claims?

Apparently not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your only standard is yourself.

False... and with that said: Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're confused.

LMAO!

IRONY!​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Smiling ...
Apparently not.

I agree... It's unlikely that you're smiling.

 

[Skylar]

Your only standard is yourself.

False... and with that said: Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Of course it is. You claim 'nature' is the 'supreme authority' on the imaginary 'natural law of marriage'. Yet you can't cite example sof marriage outside of human society. As it doesn't exist anywhere but within the very societies that invented it. Worse you cherry pick nature. Any portion of nature that you don't like or doesn't fit your argument, you ignore.

For example...infanticide. Or the predation of the sick, the young, the old. Both of these things happen all the time in nature. Yet they don't conform to your idea of 'natural law'. So you ignore your 'supreme authority' and replace it with whatever you already believe.

Demonstrating elegantly....that your only standard is you. Not nature. As you'll gladly ignore your 'supreme authority' whenever your 'authority' doesn't conform to what you already believe.

You citing you doesn't define anything objectively, my little Relativist.

 

[Skylar]

Smiling ...
Apparently not.

I agree... It's unlikely that you're smiling.

And once again you ignore the dictionary replacing it with whatever you imagine.

Ladies and Gentlemen......I give you the Relativist Right Winger.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Isn't it cool how easy it is to tell when the Homo-cult is feeling less popular?" is an example of hetero-fascist crazy talk.

The fact the majority of America supports Marriage Equality would not allow it to take a heterosexual marriage. That is your error in logic.

 

[dcraelin]

ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.

Prove they're are in the source cited by your pictures. You can't provided a single link backing any of your quotes. Again, I'll be happy to show you my links when you show me yours. With evidence. I'm all about homework....once you've done your own. But I'm not providing a single link to any source to a person who won't back their own claims first.

And of course, you're still ignoring every example of the tyranny of the majority in our history, along with every example of it in the world's history. From slavery to Socrates, you either ignore them entirely or pretend they never existed. But its not like we have to ignore history just because you do.

Adams described the injustice and inhumanity of the majority heaped upon the minority as being on all pages of history. And he's right.

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

You picture isn't a source. Show me a link to the text. I'll gladly show you mine once you do. And you like Jefferson, huh?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

Want some more?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Law is always the tyrants will when it violates the rights of the individual. About as clear a contradiction of your claims as is possible.

You're literally advocating oppression per the standards of Jefferson. Literally ignoring the inhumanity and injustice the majority heaps upon the minority per Adams.. Where the majority can do....anything. Strip any right, take property, even take life with a simple 50% plus 1 vote. And even more laughably, insisting that the majority can't be tyrannical. \

And then there's the 14th amendment which forbids the state to violate the rights of US citizens. Which you summarily ignore as well. Again, just because you ignore everything inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean we're similarly obligated.

The source is right in the picture you dolt....founders online is a web source......

Then just post the link to the text and I'll do the same. But for some reason.....you keep giving me excuses why you can't.

I'm down with homework. As long as you do it first.

Henry speaks to your "historic examples" .....slavery was a system which generally was the minority over the majority.

Whites weren't the minority. They were the majority. And given that in almost all cases only whites could vote.....their vote was the 'vote of the majority'. And yet the vote of the majority was profoundly inhumane, injust and tyrannical. Explicitly contradicting your absurd and demonstrably false assertion that the majority can't be tyrannical.

Of course they can be.

As was anti-semetic laws, the Chinese exclusion act, anti gay legislation, anti Irish laws, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, segregation, etc.

All explicit contradictions of your nonsense thesis. And all ignored by you. But just because you ignore any contradiction of your beliefs doens't mean we're similarly obligated to pretend none of it happened. Which is why you fail.

Yes, Jefferson did have an out in unjust systems....rebellion... a little now and then was essential...but as my gallery pic of him shows,he thought the will of the majority was the only sure guardian of the rights of man..........

Jefferson obliterates your claims:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Any law that violates the rights of the individual is always the 'tyrant's will'.

You ignored that too. No rational person ever would. Keep running.

Im not going to look it up for you...........the point on that is that it was always there...while your sources are not.

You pick out one supposed quote from Jefferson and I have shown many. here are some more Jefferson on Politics Government Majority Rule talking mostly about the duty to follow the will of the majority. lex majoris parti That without it rule by force becomes the option.

another I believe is 'lex majoris parti is the first principle of Republicanism but generally the last learned'

Whites were a minority in some southern states....white slaveholders were always a minority ...if a vote had been taken nationwide at the time of founding slavery would most likely have been outlawed, certainly if the vote granted slaves even the 3/5ths vote they were counted as for representation........it was the powerful MINORITY that perpetuated slavery.

and please quit comparing yourself to enslaved blacks.....no ones buying it.....especially not the blacks.

The US was this vaunted republic at the nations founding....with your precious court system.....what did it do for enslaved blacks??

yes there has been oppression of minorities by majorities in history ...preventing gay couples from getting the exact same piece of paper as married couples doesnt come near examples most think of.

The 14th amendment was coerced, some think at least partially written, underhandedly, as a benefit to the powerful railroad corporations of the day. Since its passage the Supreme Court has used it to advance the interests of the powerful by granting corporate person-hood through it. If the court rules in your favor using the 14th it will further ingrain this poorly written and perhaps corrupt amendment into "jurisprudence".

The poorly thought out, (and not supported by gay leadership in California) prop 8 suit has the possibility of severely damaging our founding principle of republican/democratic rule. you are so wrapped up in this one issue that you fail to see the damage this suit could bring in other areas of the law.

now, I have said all this to you before..........you have come up with two maybe legitimate quotes.....but otherwise you always say the same thing..................so I think this will be the last time I bother responding to you.

And it has all been said to you before that you're wrong.

The following facts are settled and beyond dispute:

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law; one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and the states have no authority whatsoever to determine who will or will not have his civil rights. (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette)

Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings Federal courts are supreme – binding on all the states and local jurisdictions. (Cooper v. Aaron)

Gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections (Romer v. Evans.)

Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice, their right to privacy and self determination immune from attack by the states, where whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant. (Lawrence v. Texas)

As a result of these facts beyond dispute, to seek to discriminate based on sexual orientation is likewise repugnant to the Constitution, as it is to seek to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin.

The only appropriate, relevant response on your part, therefore, is to either cite where the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Barnette, Cooper, Romer, and Lawrence, or acknowledge that you are wrong as a fact of Constitutional law, law you may not like or agree with for personal, subjective reasons, but the settled and accepted law of the land nonetheless.

I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before. Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

 

[Skylar]

I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before.

No, you haven't. You just arbitrarily ignored the entire Bill of Rights. Where in your estimation, the majority can violate any right, strip any liberty, take anything from anyone, even their LIFE, with a simple majority vote.

That is not nor has ever been our system of government.

With your own sources affirming that government is limited by individual rights. That when the will of the majority violates rights, a great crime as been committed. That the violation of individual rights is oppression. That any law that violates individual rights is ALWAYS the tyrant's will.

And your ignore your own sources. You ignoring your own sources, ignoring the Bill of Rights, ignoring all legal precedent, ignoring every civil right, ignoring history, ignoring the very concept of rights......is not 'proving' anything. Its just straight up willful ignorance. Where you insist that nothing that contradicts you actually exists.

Um....the wold doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

There can be unconstitutionally discriminatory requirements as the Loving decision made ludicrously clear when it overturned unconstitutional interracial marriage bans. There's nothing inherent to participation in marriage that same sex couples can't do. With marriage having been recognized as a civil right. So if you're going to deny that right to same sex couples, you'll need a good reason, a valid legislative end, and a legitimate state interest.

And there are none regarding same sex marriage bans.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

You summarily ignore any ruling you don't like, based on your personal opinion. But what possible relevance does your arbitrary willful ignorance have to do with us? It certainly has nothing to do with the law nor the outcome of any court case.

 

[Silhouette]

I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before. Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

Here here!

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

Oh, yes. Let's hope the Justices revisit Lawrence v Texas and remember that it was about decriminalization; not the stamp of legitimacy..and for damn good reasons... (local regulation of behaviors, 1st Amendment rights to refuse to participate, the welfare of children...)

 

[Skylar]

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise. Worse, the issues of whether or not gays are protected is already settled case law nearly 2 decades old in Romer v. Evans.

Meaning you fail both theoretically and legally.

And please be aware that the person you're clapping for is arguing that ANY right, any property, even your life.....can be taken from you with a simple majority vote. That's the mentality that is required for your arguments to make sense. And that's not system of government we live in or have ever lived in.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

First off, no one is required to have kids or be able to have them to marry. Nixing your entire concept. Second, your proposal does nothing but hurt children. As denying marriage to same sex parents don't magically mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have married parents. Which hurts these children. As the courts have already found:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor v. US

This is the immediate legal harm, the humiliation, the loss of integral family security that you demand we inflict on tens of thousands of children. While benefiting no child. Clearly 'children' aren't your concern. They're merely a horse for you to ride. The moment a given child doesn't allow you to attack gays, they're beneath your consideration.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

 

[Montrovant]

I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

Of course he said nothing of the sort, but hey, when has that ever stopped you?