6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

You talk about natural morality, and based on your spirit and language, the early Christians would have tossed you out on your butt.

Right. The issue here is secular. It is whether or not states should be forced to incentivize "married" situations where children will be subject to a lack of one blood parent 100% of the time. Like gay marriages or single parenthood. Should states be forced to remove their icon of keeping both blood parents of children incentivized to share a home/life together or not?

It will be an issue of children's consideration. Just not quite in the way that LGBT subculture activists hoped..

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you quote Jude as you have so often, the issue is religious as well. Quit cut and pasting and meet me in the bull ring so we can have a discussion on transparency, yours and mine.

You have offered no compelling reason that does not also include hetero failure when it comes to protection of children.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...In-utero? Have probly heard the claim babies masturbate in the womb. Huff Post has too it seems,

That Michael Burgess Fetal Masturbation Thing That Happened Science Has Weighed In

Last paragraph citing the origin of the claim clarifies the reality.

Anyone need anything else, in terms of 'evidence' of the tendency of the Sexually Abnormal and the evidence of it being a perversion of human reasoning?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If anyone does, they can go to any fundamentalist or evangelical congregation, watch and observe.

 

[Silhouette]

When you quote Jude as you have so often, the issue is religious as well. Quit cut and pasting and meet me in the bull ring so we can have a discussion on transparency, yours and mine.

You have offered no compelling reason that does not also include hetero failure when it comes to protection of children.

You mean over at the "should gay marriage be forced on churches" thread?

Here we are discussing secular laws. I know the difference. You want to make it about religion right now because my secular points are kicking your ass. You're such a weasel. I mean, really. You are. It's just out there now.

What right does the fed have to violate its own mandates in Windsor 2013 for states' "unquestioned authority" on the choice about gay marriage or not, to impose a situation where states are forced to incentivize any marriage that guarantees children within it to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentary gender-as-role-model 100% of the time?

The fed is going to tell untold numbers of future American children, "sorry, we are removing states' rights to protect your bests interests and we are now dictating to them a completely unexplored and unknown venue in which children will be thrust to grow in their formative years to adulthood as a new institution...as guinea pigs"..."we'll just hope you can wing-it with the unknown but likely bad product of this new, forced cult value".

That's not really fair and true though as "unknown". We've already been given little glimpses into that foreboding crystal ball haven't we? Thomas Lobel, the plight of children of single parent homes where one blood parent/complimentary role model is missing 100% of the time..

We already know this "experiment" won't fare well for untold millions of future children.

You don't like the concept of "future children" do you Jake? You'd like the focus to not even be on the larger segment of children without a blood parent in their home 100% of the time. You want to narrow that focus way way way down, at the expense of the vast majority of children who stand to be adversely-affected by this SCOTUS decision pending. You want this to ONLY be about that tiny tiny fraction of children known as "those children living with gays now and how they'll suffer if their parents cannot rewrite the foundation of the word marriage"... the tens, hundreds of millions or even billions of future children otherwise be damned.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you close your eyes and listen very carefully... you can hear the idiots in ignore cryin' for attention.

LOL! Such a wonderful feature. It truly demonstrates how much better a culture can be by simply shutting out the voices of those incapable of reason.

Imagine what the United States economy would be like TODAY! If as a culture we had IGNORED the Left... .

We'd have THRIVING Textile, Steel, Electronics and Auto-manufacturing industries, where tens of millions of good, highly skilled people would be making excellent wages... providing high quality products, which would be sold throughout the world. Teenagers would be working in low-skilled service jobs, making the wage which reflects minimum skills and everyone would understand that THAT IS HOW CHILDREN ACQUIRE MARKETABLE SKILLS... .

Black families would be thriving with a majority of such having two parents of the distinct gender... and US Medical Care would be cheap and plentiful and the envy of the species.

But no... Instead we sought to normalize abnormal, perverse reasoning and those industries are GONE!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Federal Government stole the issue of marriage from the states in 1862. Few people understand just how long the Feds have been exerting unconstitutional fiat over this issue.

 

[Silhouette]

The Federal Government stole the issue of marriage from the states in 1862. Few people understand just how long the Feds have been exerting unconstitutional fiat over this issue.

It's ironic that you have Saint Michael as your name and avatar. He was/is the one angel known for ruthlessness in kicking ass on behalf of God's mandates. You might want to read up on Jude 1 actually to learn that instead of being your benefactor, he might be your undertaker.

There Jake, you happy? I just gave you another tangent to escape the salty and sharp points I just made in a secular venue on my last post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil won't take a fair challenge and keys is bumbling in the closet.

With SCOTUS taking the 6th, the game is on, with Sotomayor possessing 6 to 3 or 7 to 2 majorities already.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil won't take a fair challenge and keys is bumbling in the closet.

With SCOTUS taking the 6th, the game is on, with Sotomayor possessing 6 to 3 or 7 to 2 majorities already.

You think SCOTUS will overturn Windsor 2013 that quickly eh? Poor Ms. Windsor will be so sad to learn her money will have to be returned once it's known that the fed CAN interfere with non-racial decisions on marriage made at the state level.

There's a GOP Congress now. And likely a POTUS in 2016. That old "fed dictatorship" thing can really turn on a dime when the power is removed from the states..

You realize that this "marriage equality" nonsense is the LGBT cult pushing for just their version of DOMA, right? And that that position can and will change the minute a GOP Administration takes the helm, right?

1. Either states have the right to define non-racial marriages or they don't. You cannot have it both ways.

2. Either a federal mandate on non-racial (gay) marriage (DOMA) is binding or not. You cannot have it both ways as it suits your agenda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues to dwell in dreamland.

SCOTUS is not answerable to POTUS, COTUS, or Sil.

Sil will be disappointed to finally realize everyone has been correct in describing her philosophies as ding ling daydreams.

 

[Syriusly]

You talk about natural morality, and based on your spirit and language, the early Christians would have tossed you out on your butt.

Right. The issue here is secular. It is whether or not states should be forced to incentivize "married" situations where children will be subject to a lack of one blood parent 100% of the time. Like gay marriages or single parenthood. Should states be forced to remove their icon of keeping both blood parents of children incentivized to share a home/life together or not?

It will be an issue of children's consideration. Just not quite in the way that LGBT subculture activists hoped..

Oh I think there will a concern for the children- just not the children you pretend to care about:

Justice Kennedy:
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Silhouette]

Oh I think there will a concern for the children- just not the children you pretend to care about:

Justice Kennedy:
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Immediate injury vs long-term injury. Yes, that's what the Justices will have to weigh for the best of society at large. That's what they're charged with you know, ultimately....what's best for society at large.

On the scale on the one side will be a loud clamoring from LGBTS that the thousands of children caught up in their lifestyles want to be legitimized...that is to say, the LGBTs are admitting that what they do isn't legitimate without society jumping on board en masse (and against their Will).

vs

The other side of the scale which believes states have a right to incentivize a formative environment into the foreseeable future where untold millions of children have the best shot at life. Most states, an overwhelming majority believe that this is where both blood parents are in the home.

So boiled down it will be "immediate injury to thousands of children" vs "long term injury to 100s of millions of children".

Kennedy himself will be the lone decider on this one. After Sutton's Opinion/Decision, the Court will undoubtedly be evenly divided and his will be the final choice on the matter.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh I think there will a concern for the children- just not the children you pretend to care about:

Justice Kennedy:
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Immediate injury vs long-term injury. .

Immediate injury- what Justice Kennedy was concerned about versus imaginatory speculative injury

Justice Kennedy:
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"


Note Kennedy never asked about your imagined children.

 

[Silhouette]

Immediate injury- what Justice Kennedy was concerned about versus imaginatory speculative injury

This situation is neither imaginative nor speculative: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum It is not imagination nor speculation that LGBT has "T" in it for "Transgender". This is the group that advocates for what is being done to Thomas Lobel.

Neither is it imaginative or speculative that children do best with both blood parents [mother and father] in the home.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice K gives not a darn for Sil's imaginary friends and children at all.

Sil's argument continues to descend into screwiness.

All nine justices would all agree Sil is nutty as they come on this issue.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Immediate injury- what Justice Kennedy was concerned about versus imaginatory speculative injury

This situation is neither imaginative nor speculative: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum It is not imagination nor speculation that LGBT has "T" in it for "Transgender". This is the group that advocates for what is being done to Thomas Lobel.

Neither is it imaginative or speculative that children do best with both blood parents [mother and father] in the home.

Silhouette, you're responding to perverse reasoning. These people are not capable of reason as their every would-be point evidences.

They have literally lost this debate every way it can be lost... .

 

[JakeStarkey]

keys, your opinion is not evidence.

The argumentation has clearly unmanned your opposition.

You are a failure, my boy.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, you're responding to perverse reasoning. These people are not capable of reason as their every would-be point evidences.

They have literally lost this debate every way it can be lost... .

Except in activist-courts. And hence the reason I labor as I do. Insanity can be socially transmitted. I'm administering the antidote. Sometimes, like with rabies, it takes many painful injections right in the belly over a long period of time to really get ahead of the disease and kill it before it kills the host..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, marriage equality is not a form of rabies.

Your cognitive ability is degenerating, my dear.