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

[dblack]

"Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!"

 

[Silhouette]

This thread is about human sexual orientation. Not animals. So far, only one sexual orientation can marry. Polygamists can file a lawsuit and it would make world news today. How would they be denied? The Muslims or Mormons are going to have their day in court in the very near future anyway. And it would violate the 14th Amendment to deny them. So might as well make that day today.

I'm sure it will help "The Equality Act" along. After all, the more the merrier! Now it will be "LGBTQP" -Americans...

 

[Syriusly]

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'.

Yes homosexuals want access to children- just like heterosexuals do.

Access to adopt, access to raise their children, access to their children's schools.

In other words- equal treatment.

Why does that offend you?

 

[Syriusly]

This thread is about human sexual orientation. Not animals. So far, only one sexual orientation can marry....

Sexual orientations can't marry.

People can marry.

Just another stupid Silhouettism.

People can be of several sexual orientations- and those people can marry- not their sexual orientations.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmm, very curious. I notice you aren't answering the direct question of whether or not denying polygamists marriage hurts their children. Are you afraid of answering for some reason?

We all notice that you always refuse to address why you support harming the children of gay parents.

You are afraid of answering because it will put your bigotry into perspective.

 

[Syriusly]

protections for not being discriminated against for employment, housing, access to public places, federal funding, credit, education, and jury service

Show me where homos aware being discriminated in these areas.

No, you don't get that, because you are the enemy of civil rights.

Whatever..... us normal folks are really tired of hearing from you LGBT homo freaks.

We normal folks are really tired of hearing from you anti-gay bigots.

Blah blah blah..... go roll around in your own.. meh, never mind.

Wow....that is the least bigoted post you have made so far.

Congratulations- I think.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there is, and Sil refused to answer, which is her answer.

Well, beats actually giving us the rational answer.

Thanks Jake!

Yep, her silent affirmation by refusing to answer is that children of gay parents are better off if their parents don't marry.

Soggy, do you believe like Sil?

I don't think it matters one way or another. The bigger issue is children growing up in same sex households. Marriage is of little consequence, at least in my book.

Which is a fundamental point. Same sex couples are already having children. If children are your focus the question isn't whether or not same sex couples should have kids. That's already been answered tens of thousands of times. But whether its better for the kids if their parents are married or if they're not allowed to be married.

And I think the evidence is clear that its better for their kids if same sex parents are allowed to marry.

I don;t think the evidence is very clear at all.... it is too new a subject. hwoever, heterosexual unions are the norm and there are thousands and thousands of years of evidence. And yes, heterosexual parents can be shitty.

Well here in the United States we presume that parents are acceptable parents until proven that they aren't.

We have no restrictions on who can become a parent- even though as you point out- we know that heterosexual parents can be shitty. And yes- we know that homosexual parents can be shitty also.

There are some 100,000 children every year in the United States waiting to be adopted.
Some 33,000 of those children will wait up to 5 years to be adopted.
Thousands age out of the foster system with no family at all- abandoned by the state after their own families abandoned them.

If a couple wants to adopt them- and they meet the basic screening standards for adoptive parents- then let those children have parents- regardless of the parents sexual orientation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't think it matters one way or another. The bigger issue is children growing up in same sex households. Marriage is of little consequence, at least in my book.

Which is a fundamental point. Same sex couples are already having children. If children are your focus the question isn't whether or not same sex couples should have kids. That's already been answered tens of thousands of times. But whether its better for the kids if their parents are married or if they're not allowed to be married.

And I think the evidence is clear that its better for their kids if same sex parents are allowed to marry.

I don;t think the evidence is very clear at all.... it is too new a subject. hwoever, heterosexual unions are the norm and there are thousands and thousands of years of evidence. And yes, heterosexual parents can be shitty.

You're speaking of the doubts of same sex parenting. And that's a separate issue from same sex marriage.....which in the context of children is a legal status for the relationship. Not the actual relationship.

How would children be benefited by say, not having certain survivor or medical benefits afforded through the marriage of their parents? Or by being stigmatized through not having married parents?

The legal benefits of having married parents are clear. The stability to home is clear. And same sex parenting isn't new. Only legal recognition of the marriage of those parents is new.

Honestly, yes, there are monetary rewards for sure.

That's what I'm saying. I can see some debate on the benefits of same sex parenting. But its a separate issue from same sex marriage...which is simply legal recognition for a relationship. Not the actual relationship.

And the legal recognition carries some pretty obvious benefits.

Agreed... no argument there from me!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Show me where homos aware being discriminated in these areas.

No, you don't get that, because you are the enemy of civil rights.

Whatever..... us normal folks are really tired of hearing from you LGBT homo freaks.

We normal folks are really tired of hearing from you anti-gay bigots.

Blah blah blah..... go roll around in your own.. meh, never mind.

Wow....that is the least bigoted post you have made so far.

Congratulations- I think.

Meh.. you just don't get my sense of humor.. and that is fine, so call me a bigot if that makes you feel like you've accomplished something. I really don't give a shit.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Yes, it was awfully nice of these "kid caring" 5 Justices to subject them to an experiment like lab rats; where we already know that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life, as a matter of contract, is an onerous term that society cannot allow children to be forced to participate in.

The majority of children being raised without either a mother or father are children being raised by heterosexuals.

AS YOU KNOW- the state does not prevent the divorce of any couple for the welfare of the children- none.

Society 'allows' this to happen thousands of times a day- for heterosexual parents.

You only pretend to care when the parents are gay.

You would prefer their children to be harmed- rather than to allow their parents to be legally married.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, it was awfully nice of these "kid caring" 5 Justices to subject them to an experiment like lab rats; where we already know that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life, as a matter of contract, is an onerous term that society cannot allow children to be forced to participate in.

Ending gay marriage in no way stops gay people from raising their children. Your solution doesn't address your problem. We both know your end game, but your too chicken shit to admit it.

Which of course is one of the many reasons the arguments of the anti-gay marriage folks lost.

 

[Syriusly]

...actually it wouldn't end gay marriage in the states that ratified it. Time to either 1. Accept polygamy marriage nationwide or 2. Roll up your sleeves and convince each state to ratify "gay marriage". It wouldn't be the end of gay marriage; just the beginning of a lot of hard work. So, what is it, you guys just lazy or something

Or gay people can do nothing and continue to marry in every state despite your whining. You've lost this issue, along with whatever marbles you had left. Too bad, so sad.

Holding your head in the sand won't roll back the rights of polygamist-Americans to have their orientation be legal to marry as well. r.

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

That's all you ever see. All your thought is bent on it. The problem for you is that most people have moved on from this issue. Your personal obsession isn't everyone else's obsession.

Well see that's the thing. When polygamist-Americans seek their day in court and that case pending makes the news, suddenly folks lulled to sleep on the issue will wake up..in numbers that might even alarm you mdk..

Its been over 10 years and still no such cases.

Meanwhile- you have the right to pursue your dream of a polygamous marriage through the legislature or through the courts.

Doesn't mean you will succeed- but you can pursue your dreams.

 

[Silhouette]

Well see that's the thing. When polygamist-Americans seek their day in court and that case pending makes the news, suddenly folks lulled to sleep on the issue will wake up..in numbers that might even alarm you mdk..

Its been over 10 years and still no such cases.

I know right? I'm glad we agree this other sexual orientation is long-overdue for their day in court.

 

[Syriusly]

Well see that's the thing. When polygamist-Americans seek their day in court and that case pending makes the news, suddenly folks lulled to sleep on the issue will wake up..in numbers that might even alarm you mdk..

Its been over 10 years and still no such cases.

I know right? I'm glad we agree this other sexual orientation is long-overdue for their day in court.

What other sexual orientation?

Sexual orientations don't have days in court- people do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sexual orientations are not race-based either. Neither is civil liberties. They are people based.

 

[Skylar]

Well see that's the thing. When polygamist-Americans seek their day in court and that case pending makes the news, suddenly folks lulled to sleep on the issue will wake up..in numbers that might even alarm you mdk..

Its been over 10 years and still no such cases.

I know right? I'm glad we agree this other sexual orientation is long-overdue for their day in court.

You do realize that you just invented a sexual orientation, right? Just like you invented children being 'married to their parents', and myriad of other pseudo-legal nonsense.

But what possible relevance does your imagination have with the actual law?

 

[Skylar]

Why would we want to put the rights of people to a vote?
.

That's exactly what Turley or another sharp attorney will argue before the courts when ANY sexual orientation is turned away for a marriage license.

Laughing.....would you like to make a wager that 'Turley' won't argue for putting rights up for a vote.

If you win, I'll send the cash right to your door in Trinidad. If I win, you give the money to the FLAGS of my choice. Sound like a deal?

Say.....$50?

 

[Skylar]

This thread is about human sexual orientation. Not animals. So far, only one sexual orientation can marry. Polygamists can file a lawsuit and it would make world news today.

Nope. They already filed suit, petitioning the USSC itself. It barely made a blip.

You're pumping pure, desperate imagination, Jen. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

How would they be denied?

'Polyamory' isn't a sexual orientation. As 'poly' isn't a sex. Its a number.

Jen, seriously......you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just making this shit up as you go along. And you've literally *never* been right in any legal prediction.

How do you explain your stunning, nay *perfect* record of failure in predicting the outcome of any case?

Bad luck?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Sigh.

It's getting to the point where I haven't the willpower to read through all of your poorly fashioned contrivances. What are you trying to accomplish by embarrassing yourself as you do?