LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[The Rabbi]

And if you extend marriage to homosexual and lesbian couples, then they would also be entitled to marital privacy, correct? Then you're excluding homosexual and lesbian couples from their freedom to marital privacy by not allowing them to be legally married.

Why are Conservatives so interested in homosexuals' and lesbians' private lives? Isn't that what big government liberals do?

No one cares about their private lives. That's the part you dont get.
Your argument is laughable. The product of gross ignorance and laziness. Go get a clue.

 

[KNB]

And if you extend marriage to homosexual and lesbian couples, then they would also be entitled to marital privacy, correct? Then you're excluding homosexual and lesbian couples from their freedom to marital privacy by not allowing them to be legally married.

Why are Conservatives so interested in homosexuals' and lesbians' private lives? Isn't that what big government liberals do?

No one cares about their private lives. That's the part you dont get.
Your argument is laughable. The product of gross ignorance and laziness. Go get a clue.

Then what is the argument against gay marriage if it doesn't have anything to do with their private sex lives?

 

[The Rabbi]

And if you extend marriage to homosexual and lesbian couples, then they would also be entitled to marital privacy, correct? Then you're excluding homosexual and lesbian couples from their freedom to marital privacy by not allowing them to be legally married.

Why are Conservatives so interested in homosexuals' and lesbians' private lives? Isn't that what big government liberals do?

No one cares about their private lives. That's the part you dont get.
Your argument is laughable. The product of gross ignorance and laziness. Go get a clue.

Then what is the argument against gay marriage if it doesn't have anything to do with their private sex lives?

Seriously? That's a clown question, bro.

 

[KNB]

Here's a serious question then:

Why does someone who loves RuPaul hate gay people so much?

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's a serious question then:

Why does someone who loves RuPaul hate gay people so much?

That's also a clown question, bro.

 

[KNB]

So answer the way a clown in make-up would. How would RuPaul answer it?

 

[The Rabbi]

So answer the way a clown in make-up would. How would RuPaul answer it?

You're simply fabulous. Now shut the fuck up.

 

[OKTexas]

And if you extend marriage to homosexual and lesbian couples, then they would also be entitled to marital privacy, correct? Then you're excluding homosexual and lesbian couples from their freedom to marital privacy by not allowing them to be legally married.

Why are Conservatives so interested in homosexuals' and lesbians' private lives? Isn't that what big government liberals do?

Why do you ignore the fact that they have equality and can marry just like everyone else, in fact many have. They are now demanding something other than equality. Come on now, no dancing or deflection allowed, admit they have equality.

 

[KNB]

What is "other than equality"? What are gay and lesbian couples asking for beyond a legally recognized marriage?

In what way does gay marriage threaten your freedom?

 

[The Rabbi]

What is "other than equality"? What are gay and lesbian couples asking for beyond a legally recognized marriage?

In what way does gay marriage threaten your freedom?

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

 

[OKTexas]

What is "other than equality"? What are gay and lesbian couples asking for beyond a legally recognized marriage?

In what way does gay marriage threaten your freedom?

Legally recognized marriages are constructed of a man and a woman. Like I said, if they want something else, give it a name and try to sell it to the state legislatures.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No in MOST states they can marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex, just like every one else. That is due process and equal treatment under the law. You want something else, give it a name and sell it to the state legislatures. You also might want to check out the difference between a simple mental disorder and true insanity.

Things are getting twisted here.

People are suggesting that homosexuality is a "mental disorder" which can therefore prevent gay from marrying in the same way an insane person can be prevented from marrying or having many other rights others have.

The second point is equal treatment under the law. The US Supreme Court said separation is not equal. Back in the day similar arguments were being used to keep black people down, now they're being used to keep gay people down.

It's about being able to choose who you want to marry. The US govt doesn't tell straight people who they can marry or not. They say they can choose whoever they like, black or white or yellow, old or young (over the age of consent of course).
Why do you think it's acceptable for the law to decide for people who they can choose to marry when the people are consenting?

This is the issue.

Are you free or are you at the whim of the government?

Most people will say liberty and freedom are the most important things and then turn around and say "for me, not for them".

Hypocrisy? Of course.

As for the difference between mental disorders and insanity, well hell, someone in my family suffers from bad mental disorders and SHE'S MARRIED.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, you think because something can be construed to be a right, suddenly it is. There is no right to wear a hat. There is no right to wash your hands. There is no right to get married. Again, anything that requires a permit ipso facto is not a right.
Marital privacy, which applies to people who are not married, is not the same as a right to marriage.

Again, who decides what rights are? Constitutionally it is the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has stated there is a "right to marital privacy".

Permits shouldn't be put on things that are rights. Just because someone puts a permit on something doesn't mean it isn't a right.

As i've posted before from Griswold:

"The entire fabric of the Constitution and the purposes that clearly underlie its specific guarantees demonstrate that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected."

the right to marry is said by a Supreme Court justice about the right to marital privacy.

Now, even if we say there isn't a right to marry. The question is this. Why should the govt be able to decide who can and who can't marry?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This isn't about black people. Black people oppose gay marriage by overwhelming numbers. And I'll bet they take umbrage at seeing their moral high ground appropriated in support of a deviant lifestyle.

I'm talking Civil Rights.

The same or similar arguments are being repeated, and about 50 years later too. It's incredible.

I'm not talking about whether black people support gay marriage or not.

Rosa Parks wasn't the first person to sit at the front of the bus, but the rights groups didn't use the first woman because she was considered too black!!!!
yep, even racism within the community of people suffering racism. Go figure.

The point is that black people were denied the right to marry white people, right? However this was outlawed because it went against the Constitution, and the principles of the founding fathers.

So why gay people?

Because they're "deviant"? I'm sorry, but what someone does in the privacy of their own home is none of your business, and none of the US govt's business. So whether you think what I do in my bed is deviant or not makes no difference, and apparently you don't care as you don't try and stop me from marrying.
So why gay people? Because of what they do?

They're supposedly deviant whether they marry a person of the same sex or not.

Also, they might be deviant in your eyes but they're NOT BREAKING THE LAW, which is the most important thing here.

 

[OKTexas]

No in MOST states they can marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex, just like every one else. That is due process and equal treatment under the law. You want something else, give it a name and sell it to the state legislatures. You also might want to check out the difference between a simple mental disorder and true insanity.

Things are getting twisted here.

People are suggesting that homosexuality is a "mental disorder" which can therefore prevent gay from marrying in the same way an insane person can be prevented from marrying or having many other rights others have.

The second point is equal treatment under the law. The US Supreme Court said separation is not equal. Back in the day similar arguments were being used to keep black people down, now they're being used to keep gay people down.

It's about being able to choose who you want to marry. The US govt doesn't tell straight people who they can marry or not. They say they can choose whoever they like, black or white or yellow, old or young (over the age of consent of course).
Why do you think it's acceptable for the law to decide for people who they can choose to marry when the people are consenting?

This is the issue.

Are you free or are you at the whim of the government?

Most people will say liberty and freedom are the most important things and then turn around and say "for me, not for them".

Hypocrisy? Of course.

As for the difference between mental disorders and insanity, well hell, someone in my family suffers from bad mental disorders and SHE'S MARRIED.

Only thing twisted is you, having a mental disorder does not render a person incompetent but by the same token we don't rework our whole social order for a mentally disturbed minority.

The equal but separate bull shit doesn't apply here, why, because gays are not prohibited from getting married. Your argument that treating them the same as everyone else isn't good enough, somehow not true equality, that's bullshit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No one cares about their private lives. That's the part you dont get.
Your argument is laughable. The product of gross ignorance and laziness. Go get a clue.

So you don't care about their private life? So why not let them make the decision on which consenting adult they want to marry?

If his argument is laughable, why haven't you countered it? Instead just a brief post.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, you think because something can be construed to be a right, suddenly it is. There is no right to wear a hat. There is no right to wash your hands. There is no right to get married. Again, anything that requires a permit ipso facto is not a right.
Marital privacy, which applies to people who are not married, is not the same as a right to marriage.

Again, who decides what rights are? Constitutionally it is the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has stated there is a "right to marital privacy".

Permits shouldn't be put on things that are rights. Just because someone puts a permit on something doesn't mean it isn't a right.

As i've posted before from Griswold:

"The entire fabric of the Constitution and the purposes that clearly underlie its specific guarantees demonstrate that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected."

the right to marry is said by a Supreme Court justice about the right to marital privacy.

Now, even if we say there isn't a right to marry. The question is this. Why should the govt be able to decide who can and who can't marry?

Because the state has a compelling interest in it. Because marriage and the family are the bedrock of society. Because the 10thA reserves to states rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Ergo states have the power to define marriage, not some unelected judge somewhere.

 

[KNB]

The equal but separate bull shit doesn't apply here, why, because gays are not prohibited from getting married. Your argument that treating them the same as everyone else isn't good enough, somehow not true equality, that's bullshit.

If you pass a law that defines legal marriage as being between one man and one woman, then gay and lesbian couples can't legally get married. That means that they are prohibited from getting married. That is not equality under the law. That is due only to Christians using public laws to enforce their small-minded, outdated religious dogma on secular society in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

What do they want that the rest of us don't have? The right to marry a consenting adult of their choice?

What does marriage mean in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce?

We're not talking marrying people they are related to, we're not talking about something that could harm other people, incest.

But two gay people can't produce children, they're not able to produce babies that have serious problems, unlike brother and sister.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one cares about their private lives. That's the part you dont get.
Your argument is laughable. The product of gross ignorance and laziness. Go get a clue.

So you don't care about their private life? So why not let them make the decision on which consenting adult they want to marry?

If his argument is laughable, why haven't you countered it? Instead just a brief post.

Who is stopping anyone from marrying? TN defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet gays get married here every day. I havent seen anyone hauled off to jail yet.
So it isnt about getting married. It's about the money.