LGBTs At It Again: "The Equality Act": Shoehorn to End Religious Or Any Other Objections

[JakeStarkey]

The constitution doesn't protect fake religious beliefs .

It doesn't protect psycho sex fetishists either, but that hasn't stopped you or the other sociopaths from claiming it does.

Well the con gives us a right to privacy .

What bugs me , these fake ass Christians who ignore 95% of their religion , live in sin, have premarital sex, then have the nerve to claim the gays violate their religion?! How can you violate religious beliefs you don't even follow ??!

I'm not religious, so ask a Christian. As for some 'right to privacy', homosexuals aren't interested, they want to be in everybody's face, and access to children, so they should keep to themselves if they don't like others having a say in their sicko fetish 'self-expressions'.

No wonder people think you are an idiot. heterosexuals are everyone's face and want access to children. You are an idiot.

Pipe down, Jake; you've never had sex anyway, of any kind, and don't have any stake in this.

Picaro, along with Sil, you are one of the greater laughing stocks on the board on matters sexual.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy almost always means one male, multiple wives, and leads to the exploitation and abuse of women. And simple mathematics means it inevitably leads to pedophilia and inbreeding.

A pretty good case can be made that polygamy is a societal harm.

No one can make such a case for homosexuality, no matter how many posts they make about their obsession with gay anal sex.

What a bigot you are. Homosexuality almost always leads to AIDS.
Feel good about that statement? I have a better case for societal harm than polyamory: stripping a child for life of either a mother or father with a binding legal contract. Can't say that about polygamist-orientation. Yet you can 100% of the time in "gay marriage".

I notice the point I made about demonstrating polyamory as a sexual orientation got a pass. So, how hard would it be to demonstrate that some men have an overwhelming urge/orientation to copulate with more than one woman? If you disagree, then define these words "sexual orientation".
.

What a liar you are.

Among homosexual men- the lifetime rate is about 20%- which is not 'almost always'
Among homosexual women- the rate is slightly higher than straight women.

Well you've made my point then haven't you? g5,000 was generalizing in a very bigoted way. And HIV rates in homosexual just "slightly" higher than straight women? You mean straight women in Africa, right? You might want to include that since fudging facts in a deadly disease is deadly dangerous foolery... speaking of liars...

That all being said, as you know, my point was that you can't generalize about polygamy-orientation any more than you can about homosexual orientation. All things weighed on a scale, a child missing either a mother or father for life is more detrimental; and a 100% guarantee in homosexual "marriages".. Yet polygamists can't get married. And I thought Obergefell was about not being able to deny marriage based on sexual orientation?

It seems from you LGBT cultists here, that you ARE in favor of states regulating marriage when it comes to sexual orientation, just not when it's YOUR sexual orientation... When Americans are looking at polygamy-marriage your cult says "OMG! No! That type of marriage will be harmful to kids!" (agreeing that children are implicit partners in any marriage; which they indeed are). Then when someone says Obergefell was wrong because divorcing children for life from either a mother or father is punitive to them, and they had no representation in Obergefell, suddenly your gang says 'WTF? Kids are not legally part of marriage!"

So, which is it? Are kids to be taken into consideration when it comes to certain sexually-oriented adults marrying, or are they not to be taken into consideration? Let me guess... only when it comes to polygamy, but not when it comes to gay marriage? Hit that right on the head, didn't I?

 

[Skylar]

Polygamy almost always means one male, multiple wives, and leads to the exploitation and abuse of women. And simple mathematics means it inevitably leads to pedophilia and inbreeding.

A pretty good case can be made that polygamy is a societal harm.

No one can make such a case for homosexuality, no matter how many posts they make about their obsession with gay anal sex.

What a bigot you are. Homosexuality almost always leads to AIDS. Feel good about that statement?

You do realize that most HIV is passed through heterosexual sex, with most victims of HIV being women and children, yes?

Your hallucinations about gays who 'delight' in infecting women with AIDS and getting them pregnant with AIDS babies tells us nothing about gays.

But a ton about you.

I have a better case for societal harm than polyamory: stripping a child for life of either a mother or father with a binding legal contract. Can't say that about polygamist-orientation. Yet you can 100% of the time in "gay marriage".

A child isn't party to the marriage of their parents. You know this. Which makes your recitation of your pseudo-legal nonsense about children being 'divorced' from their parents all the more incoherent.

You make shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

Get used to that pattern.

 

[Skylar]

It doesn't protect psycho sex fetishists either, but that hasn't stopped you or the other sociopaths from claiming it does.

Well the con gives us a right to privacy .

What bugs me , these fake ass Christians who ignore 95% of their religion , live in sin, have premarital sex, then have the nerve to claim the gays violate their religion?! How can you violate religious beliefs you don't even follow ??!

I'm not religious, so ask a Christian. As for some 'right to privacy', homosexuals aren't interested, they want to be in everybody's face, and access to children, so they should keep to themselves if they don't like others having a say in their sicko fetish 'self-expressions'.

No wonder people think you are an idiot. heterosexuals are everyone's face and want access to children. You are an idiot.

Pipe down, Jake; you've never had sex anyway, of any kind, and don't have any stake in this.

Picaro, along with Sil, you are one of the greater laughing stocks on the board on matters sexual.

People like Sil and Picaro are one of the best things to ever happen to gays and lesbians. They offered us a horror show of wild accusations, vast conspiracies and sinister plots by 'the gheys'.

And when folks meet gays, the wild horseshit spewed by Sil, Picaro and their ilk doesn't match them. The ludicrous narratives are contradicted by the empirical evidence of individual experience.

Which is why the majority of the nation soundly supports same sex marriage now. The conspiracy theorists utterly lost credibility as the people of this nation came to know more gay and lesbian folks personally.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What is so wrong about a man wanting to be a women???n Seriously, your book was made 2,000 years ago and is nothing more then a cult. Why should you get to tell anyone what the fuck they can do??

 

[Silhouette]

You do realize that most HIV is passed through heterosexual sex, with most victims of HIV being women and children, yes?

Misquote much? You are one of the most singularly dishonest posters at USMB. Pure dishonesty, and if I do say, pure evil therefore.

Yes, women and children are having a terrible time with HIV IN AFRICA. However the AMERICAN HIV/AIDS epidemic is being spread overwhelmingly by GAY MEN. It's a great strawman. A great diversion for post #102. Misquoting me is one thing. Misquoting the CDC's guidelines for the American HIV epidemic is deadly misleading. Hence why I said you are evil. Your misinformation could actually wind up killing people who might read here and take you at your word. "Sure, I'm a gay man and can bareback as a bottom, because I read on the web that women and children are the main ones getting HIV". You are vile Skylar. Vile.

So Skylar, do you agree that when it comes to children being a huge consideration when it comes to who gets to marry, it should apply to polygamists (polyamory-orientation) but not to "gay marriage" (homosexual orientation)? Legally speaking?

 

[mdk]

Misquote much? You are one of the most singularly dishonest posters at USMB. Pure dishonesty, and if I do say, pure evil therefore.

Oh, the irony of it all. Almost all of your legal ramblings are based on misquotes and fairy tales invented in your own imagination. You calling anyone dishonest and evil is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll ask again: from my last post:

So Skylar, do you agree that when it comes to children being a huge consideration when it comes to who gets to marry, it should apply to polygamists (polyamory-orientation) but not to "gay marriage" (homosexual orientation)? Legally speaking?

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that most HIV is passed through heterosexual sex, with most victims of HIV being women and children, yes?

Misquote much? You are one of the most singularly dishonest posters at USMB. Pure dishonesty, and if I do say, pure evil therefore.

Yeah, but you're the same person who gave us the insanity that gay men 'delight' in giving women AIDS and getting them pregnant with AIDS babies.

So you're not exactly the most reliable of sources.

Yes, women and children are having a terrible time with HIV IN AFRICA. However the AMERICAN HIV/AIDS epidemic is being spread overwhelmingly by GAY MEN. It's a great strawman. A great diversion for post #102. Misquoting me is one thing.

And who, pray tell, has insisted that HIV is limited to America? Surely not the CDC. Surely not the World Health Organization.

An estimated 36.9 million people were living with HIV worldwide in 2014. Of these, 2.6 million were children under 15 years of age and about 18.6 million were women and girls.

UNICEF STATISTICS

Most cases of HIV are transmitted through heterosexual sex.

Women and children make up the majority of people of HIV.

You know all this. You just really hope we don't. As is so common with your rambling anti-gay hysterics......your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

Misquoting the CDC's guidelines for the American HIV epidemic is deadly misleading. Hence why I said you are evil. Your misinformation could actually wind up killing people who might read here and take you at your word. "Sure, I'm a gay man and can bareback as a bottom, because I read on the web that women and children are the main ones getting HIV". You are vile Skylar. Vile.

Laughing....first you flagrant misrepresent HIV, its victims and its methods of transmission. Then you start to make up internal dialogue for anyone who disagrees with you, condemning your imagination.

Do any of us even need to be here for your latest rant off your meds?

 

[Skylar]

Misquote much? You are one of the most singularly dishonest posters at USMB. Pure dishonesty, and if I do say, pure evil therefore.

Oh, the irony of it all. Almost all of your legal ramblings are based on misquotes and fairy tales invented in your own imagination. You calling anyone dishonest and evil is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Too funny.

She's simply cracking under the pressure of informed contradiction. Her arguments rely on the ignorance of her audience. And I prefer an informed audience.

 

[Skylar]

I'll ask again: from my last post:

So Skylar, do you agree that when it comes to children being a huge consideration when it comes to who gets to marry, it should apply to polygamists (polyamory-orientation) but not to "gay marriage" (homosexual orientation)? Legally speaking?

Legally speaking, bigamy isn't recognized as legal in any state.
Its a criminal act. And there has never been any constitutionally recognized right to bigamy in any context. Not a religious, social or sexual.

Now riddle me this: how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

The Supreme Court went into elaborate detail how recognizing marriage for same sex parents helps their children......and affirmed that the right to marry is just as real for those without children or the ability to have them. The Supreme Court went into equally elaborate detail on how denying marriage to same sex parents harms their children.

Why would I ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court on the matter, and instead believe you?

 

[Silhouette]

I'll ask again: from my last post:

So Skylar, do you agree that when it comes to children being a huge consideration when it comes to who gets to marry, it should apply to polygamists (polyamory-orientation) but not to "gay marriage" (homosexual orientation)? Legally speaking?

Legally speaking, bigamy isn't recognized as legal in any state.
Its a criminal act.

And there has never been any constitutionally recognized right to bigamy in any context. Not a religious, social or sexual.

Actually, polyamory was just decriminalized in Utah in Brown v Utah, as you already know when you wrote your lie. I believe it is also decriminalized in Nevada too. So in either of those two states, a polyamory-orientation group could file lawsuit for marriage citing Obergefell. Sodomy was illegal until Lawrence v Texas. I'll note your hypocrisy for the record.

Now riddle me this: how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

The Supreme Court went into elaborate detail how recognizing marriage for same sex parents helps their children...

You would agree then that polygamy marriage helps polygamists' children. Good. Glad we're on the same page.

 

[Silhouette]

So Skylar? A big "YES" to help children of polygamists by allowing that orientation to marry legally? Think of how their children are being currently harmed by denying them marriage..

 

[Skylar]

I'll ask again: from my last post:

So Skylar, do you agree that when it comes to children being a huge consideration when it comes to who gets to marry, it should apply to polygamists (polyamory-orientation) but not to "gay marriage" (homosexual orientation)? Legally speaking?

Legally speaking, bigamy isn't recognized as legal in any state.
Its a criminal act.

And there has never been any constitutionally recognized right to bigamy in any context. Not a religious, social or sexual.

Actually, polyamory was just decriminalized in Utah in Brown v Utah, as you already know when you wrote your lie.

Nope. You're hallucinating again. The case was Brown v. Buhman. And it never so much as mentions 'polyamory' let alone decriminalizes it. Nor are polygamy and polyamory the same thing

Nor was polygamy legalized in Brown v. Buhman. All Brown v. Buhman did was decriminalize co-habitation. Bigamy is still illegal in Utah as it is in every other state. And of course, the Brown case was dismissed for lack of standing on appeal.

Remember, Jen.....I've actually read these rulings. You never have. And that makes all the difference.

And I noticed you couldn't answer my question: How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children.

You've never had a rational answer. The Court did: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children, it harms them. Once again, you ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replace them with your imagination.

So....how's that working out for you?

 

[Silhouette]

You haven't said if allowing polygamists to marry helps their children or not. I'll wait for your answer.

Meanwhile:

A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series "Sister Wives."
The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom. 'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

Got any more lies?

 

[Skylar]

So Skylar? A big "YES" to help children of polygamists by allowing that orientation to marry legally? Think of how their children are being currently harmed by denying them marriage..

So you recognize that denying same sex parents marriage harms their children?

The Supreme Court certainly recognized as much. And you flat out ignored them. How has ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court worked out for you so far?

 

[Skylar]

You haven't said if allowing polygamists to marry helps their children or not. I'll wait for your answer.

Meanwhile:

A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series "Sister Wives."
The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom. 'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

Got any more lies?

And your own quote proves me right. The court didn't legalize polygamy. It decriminalized cohabitation. This from your own quote:

Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

And just to reaffirm that you know you're completely full of pseudo-legal shit.......the very next sentence in your article affirms my point and explodes yours:

But the judge said he would keep in place the ban on bigamy "in the literal sense -- the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage."

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

Exactly as I said, bigamy is still thoroughly illegal in Utah and every other State. Polygamy isn't legal. You couldn't even get the name of the case right. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I do.

 

[Silhouette]

So what? Gay marriage was illegal until it wasn't.

You still haven't said whether or not allowing polygamists to marry helps their children. I'll wait..

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

A Look Inside 4 Important Goals of the LGBT Movement
A Look Inside 4 Important Goals of the LGBT Movement

Heading up ^^ this LGBT power summit was non other than Kevin Jennings, Obama's gay education czar. The same guy who signed off on teaching kids in school "anal fisting" and other homosexual-gateway techniques...more on that at the end of this post..

So, in a recent case called "Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)", the 7th circuit court of appeals found that homosexuals are not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, No. 3:2014cv01791 - Document 14 (N.D. Ind. 2015) This crucial decision turned the premise of all LGBT litigation on its head. What it effectively concluded was that static classes like race or gender do not equal waffling classes like behaviors.

And that's a big problem for the LGBT legal machine.

So, their solution is to try to get Congress to pass "The Equality Act". (Kim Davis, round two, writ LARGE) In this act they seek special protections for not being discriminated against for employment, housing, access to public places, federal funding, credit, education, and jury service. (sounds reasonable, right?). Exactly. That's how a shoehorn should fit.

But what they're trying to do (again) is to take what's reasonable and extrapolate legally from there. From there "because they are equal" (even though Hively v Ivy Tech says behaviors are not equal to race or gender> PREMISE DESTROYED) they will march demented men into women's restrooms, demand their dogma be taught to children in elementary schools as normal, secure no rollbacks on the illegal case Obergefell (2015), and tie Christians' or any others' hands behind their backs on all those items and more under the umbrella of "you can't discriminate against us anymore". Welcome to "The Equality Act"...But it seemed so reasonable!

So get ready. They're really pinning their hopes on this case called "Blatt vs Cabelas". This case is "the toe in the door"...so watch it closely:

(Same link as above) A Look Inside 4 Important Goals of the LGBT Movement
The employee, Kate Lynn Blatt, took the legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sex, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, arguing Cabela’s did not provide reasonable accommodations for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria...“And then when it came to the question of which bathroom she should use, [the supervisor] wouldn’t allow her to use the women’s restroom in the store, and instead, suggested that maybe she should go to the Dunkin’ Donuts across the street,” Wu said.

FYI Blatt is not a woman, so the pronoun "she" is incorrect. Cabelas instead was correct saying HE could not use their WOMEN'S restroom. No MD is going to take the witness stand and in seriousness insist that a biological male is actually a female to the extent that real females might be harmed by his (mis)diagnosis of this patient. Blatt is in for a shock because IMHO, the USSC is going to draw the line at the transgender nonsense because of the 17 million women rape survivors and the inevitable PTSD events that will be triggered if men who simply say they feel like a woman, can traipse into womens' showers, locker rooms and bathrooms as they please.

Furthermore, there is no definitive test for gender dysphoria besides self-reporting. And, psychiatrists and psychologists are fighting back hard, calling the situation one of misdiagnosis that shrouds more severe underlying psychological problems. Regular people respond to that saying "yeah, duh". LGBT cult members reel in shock at the mere suggestion.. I Wish I Had Been Told About Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery

The plan for "The Equality Act" is the usual fare. 1. Set up a bunch of court cases where a toe can be wedged through the door using the "poor gay" or "poor transgender" "getting picked on" routine. 2. Label anyone who resists instantly and unapologetically a bigot. 3. Hound state legislators and courts, using any means necessary to "persuade" (read: blackmail/scare) them into submission. 4. Do the same at the federal level until some circuit judge cries "Uncle". 5. Pray Hillary or Trump (Hillary is more conservative than Trump on these issues) nominate one or two more in-pocket liberal Justices and 6. Get all the democrats in Congress lined up, badger/blackmail/harass some GOP Congressionals to play along. 7. Wrap it all up at the USSC level so that the cult of LGBT is the official federal religion of which nobody, not even your 5 year old in Kindergarten, can speak out against or resist.

And really, when you boil it all down....your 5 year old Kindergartener is the end-game of all the machinations. Gotta keep that fresh meat open to new ideas.....OR ELSE! Happy "fisting" kids! Don't let your mom or dad get caught protesting your new lessons because they could go to jail or get fined so much you could lose your house!

If only behaviors were the same as race....

Discuss.

Welcome to Stalin World
Part of the communist goals - have a look.

 

[Skylar]

So what? Gay marriage was illegal until it wasn't.

No it wasn't. It wasn't legally recognized. It was never illegal.

Bigamy is illegal. Its a criminal act. And per your own source (which of course you'll ignore now), its still a criminal act.

Try again, Jen.