Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"These people"?

Marriage equality IS moral.

BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.

Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable

I don't care if 'these people' want to marry a chicken, however, if they want the benefits of such union, then I have to draw the line.

-Geaux

A chicken can't consent to a legal contract.

You can draw all the lines you want to, but legally married gays do get the benefits no matter how you scribble.

That's because a Chicken lacks the means to reason at sufficiently elevated levels to understand the rights and correlating responsibilities inherent in a contract.

Neither can a child.

But the more interesting question is "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ironic post is ironic. You posted nothing but your subjective opinion with no basis in fact and I'm the one that needs to learn to reason soundly? Seriously?

What does abortion have to do with marriage equality?

All my black, Jewish, and even Muslim friends support marriage equality...like the rest of America.

So you're saying that because something is declared legal, it is therefore morally sound?

That by virtue of it having been declared law by some government edict, it serves justice?

Again folks, please take note of what relativism looks like.

These people are desperate to be 'normal'. And they're prepared to do ANYTHING to get there, except reason objectively and discipline their behavior to activities that comport with the laws of nature.

"These people"?

Marriage equality IS moral.

BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.

Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable

'Popularity determines truth!'

Another typical, but fatally flawed conclusion, brought to you by: The Cult of the Relativism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"

Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.

But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.

Do we?

Huh.

So, the standard, that is Marriage, which provides for the joining of one man and one woman, for the purposes of procreation through a sound and viable group, wherein the progeny are sustained and nurtured through the complimenting traits of the respective genders, you feel that THIS institution should be banned, because there exist a percentage of that group which succumbs to sexual abnormality?

Meaning that you feel that the standards should be set to accommodate the lowest common denominator?

Which of course would be the exact opposite of the purpose which the 'standard' concept serves.

Bass-ackwards and upside down: Relativism.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't care if 'these people' want to marry a chicken, however, if they want the benefits of such union, then I have to draw the line.

-Geaux

A chicken can't consent to a legal contract.

You can draw all the lines you want to, but legally married gays do get the benefits no matter how you scribble.

That's because a Chicken lacks the means to reason at sufficiently elevated levels to understand the rights and correlating responsibilities inherent in a contract.

Neither can a child.

But the more interesting question is "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

If pigs flew out of your ass you could **** them. Seriously?!? That's what you come back with, an absurd "what if"?

 

[Seawytch]

So you're saying that because something is declared legal, it is therefore morally sound?



That by virtue of it having been declared law by some government edict, it serves justice?



Again folks, please take note of what relativism looks like.



These people are desperate to be 'normal'. And they're prepared to do ANYTHING to get there, except reason objectively and discipline their behavior to activities that comport with the laws of nature.

"These people"?



Marriage equality IS moral.



BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.



Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable

'Popularity determines truth!'



Another typical, but fatally flawed conclusion, brought to you by: The Cult of the Relativism.

It does determine morality. Do you think interracial marriages are immoral? They used to be considered so.

 

[Seawytch]

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"



Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.



But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.

Do we?



Huh.



So, the standard, that is Marriage, which provides for the joining of one man and one woman, for the purposes of procreation through a sound and viable group, wherein the progeny are sustained and nurtured through the complimenting traits of the respective genders, you feel that THIS institution should be banned, because there exist a percentage of that group which succumbs to sexual abnormality?



Meaning that you feel that the standards should be set to accommodate the lowest common denominator?



Which of course would be the exact opposite of the purpose which the 'standard' concept serves.



Bass-ackwards and upside down: Relativism.

Which state requires procreation as a qualifier for a civil marriage license?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A chicken can't consent to a legal contract.

You can draw all the lines you want to, but legally married gays do get the benefits no matter how you scribble.

That's because a Chicken lacks the means to reason at sufficiently elevated levels to understand the rights and correlating responsibilities inherent in a contract.

Neither can a child.

But the more interesting question is "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

If pigs flew out of your ass you could **** them. Seriously?!? That's what you come back with, an absurd "what if"?

Anyone else notice the deflection?

The purpose being served is to draw the attention from the significance of the query being posed and to attack the individual bringing the question and, in a delightfully sweet irony, projecting sexual abnormality upon the opposition, in the desperate hope that the stigmatic projection will cow that opposition.

CLASSIC!

Sadly, for the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, this does not answer the question, which is:

"But the more interesting question is "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"



Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.



But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.

Do we?



Huh.



So, the standard, that is Marriage, which provides for the joining of one man and one woman, for the purposes of procreation through a sound and viable group, wherein the progeny are sustained and nurtured through the complimenting traits of the respective genders, you feel that THIS institution should be banned, because there exist a percentage of that group which succumbs to sexual abnormality?



Meaning that you feel that the standards should be set to accommodate the lowest common denominator?



Which of course would be the exact opposite of the purpose which the 'standard' concept serves.



Bass-ackwards and upside down: Relativism.

Which state requires procreation as a qualifier for a civil marriage license?

Are you trying to establish that the RULE must state the principle which it serves?

Where else in law does this happen?

Do states require that all cars on the highway, be mechanically or electronically governed to not exceed the maximum limits the law allows?

Notice friends how 'reason' is "the problem", for the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality. This is known as: 'shifting the goal'.

Marriage, defined by nature as the joining of one man and one women, serves the analogous purpose emulating the act of coitus, wherein the male and female join, becoming one body, within the scope and in keeping with, the viable, natural design of the human body, which represents the sexual standard, from which the sexual abnormality: Homosexuality, deviates.

This standard encourages sound families, to the extent that is possible through law, thus that which is viably practical.

The best the opposition can muster, is the tried and true: "Nuh uh" defense, as they seek to lower yet another cultural standard, providing greater participation by the lowest common denominator, which has never resulted, anywhere, at any time, in higher performance. With all such having ever produced is greater numbers of those producing lower results.

This is all very simple stuff. How pathetic must a culture be, to have these simple principles being debated as if there is some viable alternative?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The procreation argument is a red herring.

Dismissed.

Let's move on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The procreation argument is a red herring.

Dismissed.

Let's move on.

It's not the argument, it is a premise within the argument. Procreation serves as the PRIMARY FUNCTION of marriage.

No one has EVER stated that procreation serves as its only purpose.

The red herring is in the oppositional argument which seeks to revise the procreation point as the primary point of the opposition.

I mean, what you're in effect saying is that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Which in practical terms, in today's culture, that's probably accurate. But the same ideology that is arguing to normalize sexual abnormality caused that, and the rancid examples of sub-standard humanity being produced as a result of it, should be all that any objective observer needs to know, to recognize that it is a decidedly low-standard and as such it is a VERY BAD IDEA!

We're discussing the STANDARD of marriage and it's purpose in sustaining a sound, viable culture and the Ideological Left's determination to undermine or lower that standard, for the purposes of subverting the culture, as a collectivist means toward the acquisition of power.

I'm prepared to argue any element of the issue and will happily do so, but let me just state fo the record that my favorite aspect of this issue is the looming eradication of the homosexual community, in effect shoving homosexuals back into the closet, BY THOSE WHO THEY WILLFULLY PROVIDED POWER, almost instantly, at the point where they acquire sufficient power to not NEED YOU.

Historically, they've done this through the shifting of blame. In a shell which bespeaks to the true nature of socialism, socialist policy fails. Nature simply requires that it must.

Lacking any means for objectivity, the empowered Left MUST find a scapegoat, on which to blame their certain failure.

Once the political opposition has been quelled, the search for the goat turns social, and it is at that point, the homosexuals are up. And it is NEVER pretty. In a delicious irony, the more cruel examples of this are usually the homosexuals themselves, who have acquired some position which provides them power and, for obvious reasons.

But we can go into that whenever you're ready.

There's plenty of time to post sound reason, then you guys fecklessly reject it, as only you can, repeat and rinse.

Just let me know.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

FTR: this query remains standing:

"But the more interesting question is "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?"

(They can't answer it, because in truth, the answer is: "YES". Which discloses the truth of their position, which answers in finality, the all encompassing rationalization: "How does homosexuality harm you?"

Ya see folks, we're barreling directly toward the debate wherein "SCIENCE!" declares that 'children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults'.

At that point, the basis for a legal argument is formed.

So what YOU may feel is the Left taking a moral stance, that 'children are not capable of sexual consent because they lack sufficient means to understand the consequences, thus cannot make an informed decision'. What you're missing is the teeny tiny little qualifier you will almost always see in the above statement, which are the words: "Legal" or "Legally".

Now here's where it gets ugly.

Ask yourself, what was the last thing you heard in the media regarding 'Sexual Education', in terms of what is being taught, at what age.

I can't speak for you, but the last 'report' I saw on the issue, spoke to a Father of a 13 year old girl, who snapped a picture of a posted syllabus at her school, outlining one of the schools sex-ed classes.

It covered intercourse, anal and vaginal.

Oral Sex, Aural sex, sexting, multiple partners, Homosexual sex, and so on and so forth, with the listed 'curriculum' providing insight toward dozens of hot-sex topics, to 12 and 13 year old children.

Now I ask ya, could it be argued that this sort of information provides a basis to justify the notion that those with an understanding of the above criteria, would be 'better' able to reasonably consent to a sexual relationship with an adult? means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal? Particularly where the advocacy for the normalization of sexual a normality, having provided the "SCIENCE!" which PROVES that children are well suited to consent to sex with an adult.

The answer to which is: Yes. Yes it would.

So I ask again: " ... "IF" "SCIENCE!" declared that chickens did possess the means to reason sufficiently to negotiate and service a contract, would you then accept that bestiality is sexually normal?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?"

 

[Silhouette]

Everything I've read here in these posts neglects to address one thing: that LGBT is social movement, a cult by definition. The faithful/indocrinated are not allowed to change back from cult values even if they know theirs is not a normal orientation and was gotten by being molested by a same-sex perp. By the age of 18, the imprinted behavior will be essentially permanent:

The law, adopted last year, was the first of its kind and an unusual effort to regulate a form of talk therapy. It bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation of people under the age of 18.

Hailed by gay rights groups as a landmark, the law was based on the conclusions of mainstream professional associations that such efforts have never been proved to work and that the therapy can harm young patients.

But several therapists, along with patients who say they were helped by the treatment, challenged the law in two lawsuits, asserting that it violates the First Amendment and other basic rights.

In December, two federal district judges made contradictory rulings about the law’s constitutionality, with one granting a preliminary injunction to delay enforcement of the ban and another upholding the law.

After Wednesday’s two-hour hearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the three-judge panel will decide whether to continue the injunction or to let the law take effect. Lawyers involved in the case said that whichever way this decision goes, appeals are likely to take the case back to a lower court for a full trial and that final resolution in the federal courts could take years. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/u...rnia-law-banning-conversion-therapy.html?_r=0

If anyone does defect from the cult, they are labelled "Anne Heche" which is synonymous with "heretic". The cult has a messiah, Harvey Milk. The things the cult values in their messiah is that he was brazenly open about his "queer" sexuality while holding a public office. His sexuality involved picking up orphaned teens on drugs off the streets and sodomizing them one after the other as he aged into his 40s. One of those teens, a legal minor, he officiated as the father figure to while sodomizing him. That boy grew up and killed himself on Milk's birthday. All hail the messiah.

If you bring up the Messiah, much like if you bring up Muhammed to a muslim, the faithful, even when reminded of the nuts and bolts of their messiah's "queer" sexuality with boys, they jump to defend him, one after the other.

And now this cult wants at orphans to adopt via marriage. Once married, they cannot legally be discriminated against when they go to adopt vs other married couples.

And that is your secular objection to gay marriages right there. It elevates them to the top-tier of adopting parents were legally they no longer will be able to be denied access to orphans [see sexuality of their messiah].

The premise of what LGBT is, in many of your posts folks, is incorrect. You are overlooking the obvious signs of a social cult. But when you plug in the cult premise, all of it starts to make sense....how more and more people you see are suddenly "gay"? Surely not all of them were in the closet?....how more and more boys ages 13-24 are coming down with HIV: a sudden spike in the same years the big rainbow media push has been going on.. More and more and more gays coming from a "born that way" population? Yeah, I don't think so.

Society is swept up in this cult and non-cult members are objecting. That's what Utah is about. Sure, you could argue mormonism is a cult too, but it's a cult that's been around longer than the church of LGBT. So if you weigh the two cult's "rights" in Utah, it's going to just boil down to a majority vote. And that already happened to define marriage the way it is there.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Everything I've read here in these posts neglects to address one thing: that LGBT is social movement, a cult by definition. The faithful/indocrinated are not allowed to change back from cult values even if they know theirs is not a normal orientation and was gotten by being molested by a same-sex perp. By the age of 18, the imprinted behavior will be essentially permanent:

The law, adopted last year, was the first of its kind and an unusual effort to regulate a form of talk therapy. It bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation of people under the age of 18.

Hailed by gay rights groups as a landmark, the law was based on the conclusions of mainstream professional associations that such efforts have never been proved to work and that the therapy can harm young patients.

But several therapists, along with patients who say they were helped by the treatment, challenged the law in two lawsuits, asserting that it violates the First Amendment and other basic rights.

In December, two federal district judges made contradictory rulings about the law’s constitutionality, with one granting a preliminary injunction to delay enforcement of the ban and another upholding the law.

After Wednesday’s two-hour hearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the three-judge panel will decide whether to continue the injunction or to let the law take effect. Lawyers involved in the case said that whichever way this decision goes, appeals are likely to take the case back to a lower court for a full trial and that final resolution in the federal courts could take years. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/u...rnia-law-banning-conversion-therapy.html?_r=0

If anyone does defect from the cult, they are labelled "Anne Heche" which is synonymous with "heretic". The cult has a messiah, Harvey Milk. The things the cult values in their messiah is that he was brazenly open about his "queer" sexuality while holding a public office. His sexuality involved picking up orphaned teens on drugs off the streets and sodomizing them one after the other as he aged into his 40s. One of those teens, a legal minor, he officiated as the father figure to while sodomizing him. That boy grew up and killed himself on Milk's birthday. All hail the messiah.

If you bring up the Messiah, much like if you bring up Muhammed to a muslim, the faithful, even when reminded of the nuts and bolts of their messiah's "queer" sexuality with boys, they jump to defend him, one after the other.

And now this cult wants at orphans to adopt via marriage. Once married, they cannot legally be discriminated against when they go to adopt vs other married couples.

And that is your secular objection to gay marriages right there. It elevates them to the top-tier of adopting parents were legally they no longer will be able to be denied access to orphans [see sexuality of their messiah].

The premise of what LGBT is, in many of your posts folks, is incorrect. You are overlooking the obvious signs of a social cult. But when you plug in the cult premise, all of it starts to make sense....how more and more people you see are suddenly "gay"? Surely not all of them were in the closet?....how more and more boys ages 13-24 are coming down with HIV: a sudden spike in the same years the big rainbow media push has been going on.. More and more and more gays coming from a "born that way" population? Yeah, I don't think so.

Society is swept up in this cult and non-cult members are objecting. That's what Utah is about. Sure, you could argue mormonism is a cult too, but it's a cult that's been around longer than the church of LGBT. So if you weigh the two cult's "rights" in Utah, it's going to just boil down to a majority vote. And that already happened to define marriage the way it is there.

Brilliant!

What you're describing is the subversive nature of socialism.

Never forget: SOCIALISM KILLS!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette was worrying about some secret conspiracy within the Utah state defense team to undermine the state's appeal.

This should alleviate her fears and anyone else's about that. Utah news, Salt Lake City LDS news | The Salt Lake Tribune News

 

[Silhouette]

Brilliant!

What you're describing is the subversive nature of socialism.

Never forget: SOCIALISM KILLS!

Yes, but you should also never forget that cultism isn't reserved to the left. The right is rife with it as well. You can always tell the hallmark of a cult when it diverges away from logic and common sense.

An example on the far right would be the extreme views on birth control and abortion. Then those same people line up to say they are "christian" with "christian values". And in the same breath without skipping a beat, they announce that there should be no or reduced programs to help out raising and providing for unwanted children as they grow to adulthood in low income houses.

You see. That "ism" has taken a detour from logic and common sense. If conservatives promoted no abortions, they should be the number one champion of free birth control. That's logical. If conservatives don't want more welfare or entitlement programs, they should support "Plan B" pills for those that birth control didn't work for, and are in the earliest stages of "clump of cells" pregnancy.

But they don't. And that is illogical. Their somatized and illogical brains cannot connect the dots between an unwanted child brought up on harrowing poverty and the costs in taxes of expensive prisons, mental insitution and crime of all sorts; and just a general moral decay. If you grow up unwanted in a home that wishes you never were in every way it treats you, you will grow up to be a criminal.

Likewise, if the cult of LGBT wants to be married, and marriage offers as one of its perks, top-tier access to adoptable children, that cult shouldn't have nominated and sworn allegiance to a messiah [Harvey Milk] who sodomized a minor boy orphaned street "waif" on drugs, who he was officiating as a father figure to at the same time. And many others like him through the years he held office and before.

That's illogical. It doesn't follow common sense. The cult of LGBT cannot insist the general public pull the wool over its own eyes when it comes to orphan protection. The LGBT cult has proven that it will sue relentlessly to get at what it wants. Once "married", you will not be able to stop them from adopting orphans. They will sue for "discrimination" and promote their rights over the rights of a child to be shielded from logically-predictive dangers to them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nice try, Sil, but LGBT is not a cult. Marriage is marriage, period.

 

[Silhouette]

Nice try, Sil, but LGBT is not a cult. Marriage is marriage, period.

Prove that LGBT is not a cult. Prove that LGBT people are "born that way". Show me why, for example, since all this cult-promotion in our culture, a sudden spike is seen in boys ages 13-24 coming down with HIV? Show me how it is all of a sudden that you see so many many more people "coming out gay".

Is everyone gay and just "waiting to come out of the closet"? That might be true, given how a culture demands its inhabitants to behave. What's at stake here is the unmaking of the cultural fabric. It's a thing that happened in Ancient Greece and the more famous city of Sodom. Nobody there had a chance. They were all "born gay" because to buck that system was to be an outcast, persecuted, brought into line. Lot was the only one who refused to be sucked into that culture. And he was the only one to be spared its complete destruction.

Individual divergence is one thing. And people should have compassion for gays who were imprinted that way, usually by molestation in childhood:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

But promoting these behaviors as a "new culture" or "new religion" [or cult, more properly] is destructive to the overall social fabric. There used to be a topic called the "Greying of America" discussing the baby-boomers aging. There needs to be a new topic called the "Gaying of America". The first topic would be the CDC surveys showing sudden spikes in youth coming down with HIV. Born that way? Not....

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to prove something that does not exist.

But you do if that is your thesis; the affirmation is on you.

You know SCOTUS is going to rebuke your way of thinking when it rules.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nice try, Sil, but LGBT is not a cult. Marriage is marriage, period.

Well, LGBT is a myth, which is composed of a cult.

Marriage, according to nature, is the joining of one man and one woman, designed to sustain a viable culture, by providing for procreation within a stable, sustainable family which raises the progeny through the guidance and nurturing common to both distinct genders.

This is a principle in nature, which where adherence is sought and practice, success and happiness are assured to the extent possible, where it is not, failure and despair are assured, again, to the extent possible.

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who readily accept natural laws where they pertain to physics, they completely dismiss the laws governing human behavior.

The means to violate such without consequences are precisely the same. Yet they act as if there's a viable option.

If it were not so tragic, it would be hysterical.

 

[Flopper]

Alabama (amongst other States) voted to ban interracial marriages, that vote was overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967.


>>>>

What does race have to do with LGBTQs or the cult of Harvey Milk wanting to marry? Race has as much to do with polygamy as LGBTQs; which is to say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Plus, there's that terrible snag that the messiah of the church of LGBT was a pederast who buggered orphaned teens on drugs for his jollies. He even officiated as "father figure" to at least one of those boys; who later committed suicide on Harvey Milk's birthday. The faithful line up to defend him when reminded of his sexual legacy and child victims.

Letting this church access orphans via marriage is a poor idea. And as luck would have it, is against child endangerment laws and statutes. Those statutes require people report just suspicions of potential harm, without the requirement of a legal conviction. So here I am, reporting. As required of me by law...

That's ridiculous. You aren't reporting anything. You're just repeating unproven accusations and expressing your opinion.

More to the point, what does Harvey Milk have to do with a gay marriage ban in Utah? Nothing. Your entire fallacious arguments is based on an unproven accusation that Harvey Milk sodomized a teen and in your opinion gays respect him for this; therefore if gays are allow to marry, they will adopt children and sodomize them.

It might comes as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of gays and lesbians, do not consider Harvey Milk a messiah or father figure. He's recognized by both homosexuals and heterosexuals as the first gay to hold public office in a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. This in itself was a major accomplishment for a gay in his day.