Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That

[Silhouette]

What's also quite funny, Sil, is they always seem to show up in groups when they do show up on threads on this topic, usually when anti-gay normalization folks aren't on the thread. And all they do is stack up more pages with nothing of substance, just insults.

It's like they PM each other & say,"C'mon everybody! Let's mock these folks & hope it deters anyone with an objective mind about the subject will not want to even consider the points they've made! We can't beat them in a debate about it!".

I wouldn't doubt they do exactly that..

That is absolutely what they are doing. Without question. That's why if you make a really good point about like in this thread's case, the premise being all wrong, they'll derail that page or in this case the entire thread unless you and I and other posters [invite them here] keep talking about the topic.

It's absolutely orchestrated. They have an internet think tank team that does nothing but come on political sites like these and strategically post, derail, insult, fill pages, bump threads they like, bury others they don't. Probably based out of San Francisco and networking from there.

 

[LockeJaw]

I once met a girl in person who admitted she was paid to post pro-abortion topics on facebook by a leftist activist group(I know you're pro-choice, just an example). So they undoubtedly are doing the same thing with gay normilization.

We have to expose these groups for what they are. That is a mission of mine as well as yourself(not the abortion issue obviously, want to make sure others get it, I know you do$.

 

[LockeJaw]

My little thought experiment thread is going quite well...they keep falling into the trap!

 

[Silhouette]

From one of the OP links "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review"

Instrumental learning is said to occur when there is
a change in the frequency or effectiveness of a behavioral
response as a result of contingent reinforcement
or punishment (Ferster and Skinner, 1957; Kimble,
1961; Macintosh, 1974; Skinner, 1938). Response-contingent
reinforcement (either “positive” in which an
animal moves toward a reward or “negative” in which
an animal moves away from an aversive event) increases
the frequency of behavioral responses. Response-
contingent punishment decreases the frequency
of behavioral responses. Traditionally, it has
been assumed that operant learning is the result of an
association between a behavioral response and its consequences,
i.e., response–outcome associations are
formed (Thorndike, 1911). Several variants of instrumental
conditioning are of interest to the study of
sexual behavior. For example, successful mounting
and intromitting appear to be reinforced by sensory
feedback; performance of arbitrary responses can be
positively reinforced by mate presentation; and behavioral
responses may be diminished by the removal
of sexual partners or sexual reward, such as intromission
or ejaculation.

Reward and punishment form certain sexual orientations. It's really just that simple. That's how ag and zoo industries train or untrain their subjects they need to collect off of. Been doing it for centuries. It works like clockwork.

If enough episodes of a forced artificial sexual behavior are reinforced with the reward [ejaculation] then that animal from then on associates the artificial stimuli with "reward". And thus he has a new artificial sexual orientation. Just presenting some of the new stimuli will get him excited.

You learn this stuff in psyche 101. LGBTs like to act like this is some foreign language that nobody knows of or understands from the planet Saturn [I was gonna say "Uranus" but...I want this to be a serious discussion..lol..]

 

[Silhouette]

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Utah’s request to delay the implementation of a ruling that ordered state officials to start recognizing the marriages next week.

The Denver-based judges gave the four same-sex couples who sued Utah until next Thursday to file papers laying out why the order should be implemented. The court must next choose whether to lift or extend the temporary stay....

...Kimball order, which was to take effect Monday, would have forced the state to start recognizing the marriages, allowing the couples to proceed with matters such as child custody, medical decisions and inheritance...

...State officials said the marriages shouldn’t be recognized until everybody has guidance from higher courts on the constitutionality of Utah’s ban.

Herbert worked closely with Reyes in analyzing all options, deciding it was “important that clarity and finality are provided by the highest courts,” his spokesman Marty Carpenter said in a statement.. Recognition of Utah gay marriages to stay on hold - Washington Times

More: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...extends-the-halt-on-gay-marriage-in-utah.html

Clarity and finality provided by the highest courts...what a concept! They're using the language in Windsor. And perhaps even the premise has changed to "should we grant a minority incomplete behavior group the right to dictate to the majority if that majority objects to the behaviors in that group".

ie, the courts will have to grant a cult the ability to override democratic rule. Long story short.


Which minority group will want that precedent next in court? After all, when the majority objecting to a given minority behavior no longer is valid, others cannot be arbitrarily excluded from that new enjoyment of power of the few over the majority. BigOil and other industrialists are giddy with anticipation, already gearing up to use the precedent, disallowing public input on fracking [poisoning the public water supply] and telling the majority it doesn't have to follow their laws.

This horrific precedent in American [soon to be extinct] law can go all sorts of places...

 

[GreenBean]

I once met a girl in person who admitted she was paid to post pro-abortion topics on facebook by a leftist activist group(I know you're pro-choice, just an example). So they undoubtedly are doing the same thing with gay normilization.

We have to expose these groups for what they are. That is a mission of mine as well as yourself(not the abortion issue obviously, want to make sure others get it, I know you do$.

That's actually fairly common - well financed left wing , homosexual and feminist groups do not deny that they engage in this behavior. They also force children and useful idiot" students to do their bidding .

A teacher in Fairfax, Virginia {Michael Denman} gave his students the assignment of doing research on each and every Republican presidential candidate to search for weaknesses in the candidate themselves, as well as their positions. When the information was compiled the students were then told to conspire on a strategy paper on how to best exploit these weaknesses. These papers were to be sent to the Obama campaign. Wow ! Hows that for Objective ??
Virginia: Liberty Middle School Assignment Teacher Michael Denman: Find GOP Weaknesses ? Send It To Obama | Maggie's Notebook

"Storming Wikipedia" is another campaign feminist leftists are forcing College students to participate in - it involves editing wikipedia articles to present left wing feminist view points and edit out all oppossing view points.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5028

 

[Silhouette]

Remember back when the gay judge who wanted to get married overturned the will of millions in California to make this possible for himself and his boyfriend?

Lawyers supporting the ballot measure had argued that voters endorsed a "fundamental, definitional feature" of marriage that has historical roots "in this country and, almost without exception, in every civilized society that has ever existed."

But Walker found the plaintiffs in the case -- one lesbian and one gay couple -- demonstrated by "overwhelming evidence" that Proposition 8 violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples," wrote Judge Walker.

"We are thrilled with today's ruling," said Geoff Kors, executive director for Equality California, which filed an amicus brief supporting the Prop. 8 federal challenge. "Judge Walker has preserved our democracy by ruling that a majority cannot deny a minority group of fundamental freedoms." Proposition 8 Overturned: California Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Judge Rules - ABC News

Ironically, deeming that a minority group of behaviors can dictate to the majority is actually the definition of the end of democracy. Now if he was talking about a race, a gender, people of a certain country of origin or federally-recognized religion, he may have a point of his decision contributing to our democracy.

If judge Walker had another group of minority behaviors objectionable to the majority before his court, would he rule the same way? Or would he deny them because "the majority voted that you folks cannot do behavior [fill in the blank]"?

After rendering the "thoroughly impartial decision" that judge retired and married his boyfriend. Illegally. [Windsor 2013]. And now that we see a movement in Congress to impeach these activist judges who seek to elevate super-status to objectionable minority behavioral groupings [cults], perhaps judge Walker knew all along that to quit the bench was the inevitable thing to do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

After rendering the "thoroughly impartial decision" that judge retired and married his boyfriend.

Could you link to a reputable news source to confirm this. My checking shows nothing about him getting married in his biographies.

Thank you in advance.

Illegally. [Windsor 2013].

That would depend on the State in which this supposed "illegal" Civil Marriage took place.

If it was in any of the 11 States that Windsor acknowledged (as of when it was being written) had legal Civil Marriage, in California (since the Prop 8) after the SCOTUS let the District Court Judges ruling that it was unconstitutional, or any of the 6 States since then that have allowed Civil Marriage...

Then such a Civil Marriage is legal.

And now that we see a movement in Congress to impeach these activist judges...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/

Above is a link to GovTrack which provides a searchable database and status of all bills submitted by representatives (Senators and Congressmen) - please show us where there has been any bill submitted to impeach a Judge for ruling on a Civil Marriage discrimination case in this (since you said "now that we see a movement") Congress.

Thank you in advance.

You said there was a movement "in Congress", so let's see what actions this "movement" consists of.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

After rendering the "thoroughly impartial decision" that judge retired and married his boyfriend.

Could you link to a reputable news source to confirm this. My checking shows nothing about him getting married in his biographies.

Thank you in advance.

Let me guess. You will define 'reputable' as "any source that flatly agrees with your position" and unreputable [no matter how flawless their logic]"any source that disagrees with your position"

He declined to discuss the Proposition 8 litigation, citing the “hubbub over my personal life” made by Prop. 8’s sponsors. After Walker decided to overturn Proposition 8, the measure’s sponsors contended that he should have recused himself because he is gay.

He also noted that there might be further litigation if the high court dismisses the case on standing grounds. Proposition 8 sponsors would then be likely to try to limit Walker’s ruling to the two couples who sued or even void it altogether.

Walker, a Republican appointee, was considered a conservative with a libertarian bent. His sexual orientation was well known among lawyers and judges in San Francisco, though he had never spoken about it publicly until after his ruling. He told reporters then that he had assumed it wasn’t an issue. He also said he was in a long-term relationship with his partner, a physician. Prop. 8: 'I have done my part,' retired Judge Vaughn Walker says - Los Angeles Times

It was the first time that attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com -- the group behind the amendment known as Prop 8 -- have raised the issue of Judge Vaughn Walker's sexuality. It comes less than a month after Walker, now retired, acknowledged in an interview with reporters that he has been in a relationship with a male physician for 10 years. That means he would have been in the relationship for about eight years when he took the case....

..."Fundamental to the integrity of the judicial function, and therefore to public confidence in the courts, is the judiciary's strict fidelity to the ancient maxim that 'no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome,'" the brief said in quoting a 1955 Supreme Court case. "This principle is expressed in the Code of Judicial Ethics and is codified in federal law by statutes requiring that a judge recuse himself whenever he has an 'interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.'"

Walker had a duty to disclose "the facts concerning his relationship" and his "marriage intentions" but did not disclose either one, the motion states.

"If at any time while this case was pending before him," the motion says, "Chief Judge Walker and his partner determined that they desired, or might desire, to marry, Chief Judge Walker plainly had an 'interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.' Indeed, such a personal interest in his own marriage would place Chief Judge Walker in precisely the same shoes as the two couples who brought the case. Such a clear and direct stake in the outcome would create a ... conflict, and recusal would have been mandatory."

Significantly, the attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com say they "are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case." But they argue that Walker's relationship and his refusal to disclose it should have disqualified him. They also argue that Walker had a string of "irregular and unprecedented rulings" during the case that brings his impartiality into question:

-- He ordered ProtectMarriage.com to turn over its election year internal communications, an order that was overturned by the Ninth Circuit.

-- He was set to allow the trial to be broadcast on tape delay before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and halted it.

-- He broke new ground by finding a federal right to "gay marriage" -- something that no state or federal appellate court had ever done.

-- He held that homosexuals are a "suspect class," a legal term for a group that -- like racial minorities and foreign-born citizens -- qualify for special protection. That stands in contrast to the opposite conclusion by the 11 circuit courts that had considered the issue.

-- He refused to stay the case pending an appeal. The ninth circuit eventually stepped in and issued a stay.

"The unprecedented, irregular, and/or peremptory nature of these rulings is difficult -- very difficult -- to take as the product of an objective, impartial judicial mind," the motion states.

Prop 8 judge's gay relationship under scrutiny - Baptist Press

Walker’s handling of the Prop. 8 case that led him to publicly acknowledge that he himself was gay — and that he was involved in a long-term relationship as well.

So does Walker, 69, now plan to get married?

“I assure you,’’ Walker told us, “you will not be the first to know.’’ Vaughn Walker: From gays? target to hero - Matier And Ross

So his marriage status to his decades-long gay boyfriend is a secret then eh? Are you saying he never married his years-long boyfriend after he retired from judicial activism...er...I mean, the bench? So if we searched every county in California's vital records, we would not find a marriage license for judge Vaughn Walker and his physician boyfriend?

I think the point was that he very likely harbored an intent to marry his gay partner while he was sitting on the case of allowing or disallowing gay marriage: a practice that up until that moment [and beyond and still according to Windsor 2013] that was and is illegal in California where he and his longterm gay partner lived while he presided over the case. I guess I can concede that I'm not positive he is holding himself up as "legally married" in CA to another male. But I am positive that he should have recused himself from the case.

Actually, I think it would be an excellent sleuthing project for the pro-traditional people to take up: Search every single vital records office in the country to see if judge Walker married his boyfriend and when that might have happened. Would you be in favor of that announcement? Certainly they could search the vital records of every county in California. Start there and then branch out.

 

[WorldWatcher]

After rendering the "thoroughly impartial decision" that judge retired and married his boyfriend.

Could you link to a reputable news source to confirm this. My checking shows nothing about him getting married in his biographies.

Thank you in advance.

Let me guess. You will define 'reputable' as "any source that flatly agrees with your position" and unreputable [no matter how flawless their logic]"any source that disagrees with your position"

It was the first time that attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com -- the group behind the amendment known as Prop 8 -- have raised the issue of Judge Vaughn Walker's sexuality. It comes less than a month after Walker, now retired, acknowledged in an interview with reporters that he has been in a relationship with a male physician for 10 years. That means he would have been in the relationship for about eight years when he took the case....

..."Fundamental to the integrity of the judicial function, and therefore to public confidence in the courts, is the judiciary's strict fidelity to the ancient maxim that 'no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome,'" the brief said in quoting a 1955 Supreme Court case. "This principle is expressed in the Code of Judicial Ethics and is codified in federal law by statutes requiring that a judge recuse himself whenever he has an 'interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.'"

Walker had a duty to disclose "the facts concerning his relationship" and his "marriage intentions" but did not disclose either one, the motion states.

"If at any time while this case was pending before him," the motion says, "Chief Judge Walker and his partner determined that they desired, or might desire, to marry, Chief Judge Walker plainly had an 'interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.' Indeed, such a personal interest in his own marriage would place Chief Judge Walker in precisely the same shoes as the two couples who brought the case. Such a clear and direct stake in the outcome would create a ... conflict, and recusal would have been mandatory."

Significantly, the attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com say they "are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case." But they argue that Walker's relationship and his refusal to disclose it should have disqualified him. They also argue that Walker had a string of "irregular and unprecedented rulings" during the case that brings his impartiality into question:

-- He ordered ProtectMarriage.com to turn over its election year internal communications, an order that was overturned by the Ninth Circuit.

-- He was set to allow the trial to be broadcast on tape delay before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and halted it.

-- He broke new ground by finding a federal right to "gay marriage" -- something that no state or federal appellate court had ever done.

-- He held that homosexuals are a "suspect class," a legal term for a group that -- like racial minorities and foreign-born citizens -- qualify for special protection. That stands in contrast to the opposite conclusion by the 11 circuit courts that had considered the issue.

-- He refused to stay the case pending an appeal. The ninth circuit eventually stepped in and issued a stay.

"The unprecedented, irregular, and/or peremptory nature of these rulings is difficult -- very difficult -- to take as the product of an objective, impartial judicial mind," the motion states.

Prop 8 judge's gay relationship under scrutiny - Baptist Press

Walker’s handling of the Prop. 8 case that led him to publicly acknowledge that he himself was gay — and that he was involved in a long-term relationship as well.

So does Walker, 69, now plan to get married?

“I assure you,’’ Walker told us, “you will not be the first to know.’’ Vaughn Walker: From gays? target to hero - Matier And Ross

None of those links show that Judge Walker got married.

So his marriage status to his decades-long gay boyfriend is a secret then eh?

You haven't established that he did get married.

Marriages are public record, they are not "secret".

Are you saying he never married his years-long boyfriend after he retired from judicial activism...er...I mean, the bench?

Nope.

YOU said he did get married and have not provided any evidence to support it.

So if we searched every county in California's vital records, we would not find a marriage license for judge Vaughn Walker and his physician boyfriend?

You might, you might not.

YOU made the definitive claim to an affirmative action, can't you support the claims you make?

Actually, I think it would be an excellent sleuthing project for the pro-traditional people to take up: Search every single vital records office in the country to see if judge Walker married his boyfriend and when that might have happened. Would you be in favor of that announcement? Certainly they could search the vital records of every county in California. Start there and then branch out.

Wouldn't have any problem with it what-so-ever.

Judge Walker is a public figure, they are public records.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Were you hoping to get off the topic on a diversion with Judge Walker? Or do you want to talk about which behaviors he deemed had special class status and which don't?

Which don't Worldy? And why? [Be careful how you word your answer]

 

[WorldWatcher]

Were you hoping to get off the topic on a diversion with Judge Walker? Or do you want to talk about which behaviors he deemed had special class status and which don't?

Which don't Worldy? And why? [Be careful how you word your answer]

You brought up Judge Walker, not me.

I simply pointed out potentially false statements in YOUR post.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Were you hoping to get off the topic on a diversion with Judge Walker? Or do you want to talk about which behaviors he deemed had special class status and which don't?

Which don't Worldy? And why? [Be careful how you word your answer]

You brought up Judge Walker, not me.

I simply pointed out potentially false statements in YOUR post.



>>>>

Fair enough. But are you saying he isn't married? And why do you think he made that cheeky comment about 1. "having done his part" [do judges have "parts" to do? Wouldnt' that make them activists, not impartial, and not fit therefore for the bench?] and 2. That if he got married, he was going to wrap that shit up tight and not squeak a word of it out to the world.

Pretty cheeky for a fascist such as himself. His peers are disgusted with him BTW. No judge worth his salt would've carried on the parade in the courtroom he did. He was actively badgering witnesses for the opposition. Which just having a judge consider one set of litigants "the opposition to himself" is the lowest turd in the septic tank among judges. He threatened witnesses for the opposition that their statements would be aired on video; knowing that they were already reporting violence from gay cult activists and feared for their safety at home. The Supreme Court had to step in and stop him mid-stride; but the damage had already been done because many key witnesses for traditional marriage didn't show up for fear for their safety.

You think that crap belongs in a courtroom? I don't. I'd like to see a full scale investigation done on that corruption and an expose' on prime time. First stop: county records to see if and when that "impartial judge" married his boyfriend just after he rendered the decision.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Were you hoping to get off the topic on a diversion with Judge Walker? Or do you want to talk about which behaviors he deemed had special class status and which don't?

Which don't Worldy? And why? [Be careful how you word your answer]

You brought up Judge Walker, not me.

I simply pointed out potentially false statements in YOUR post.



>>>>

Fair enough. But are you saying he isn't married?

False, I didn't say he wasn't married.

I questioned your definitive claim that he was married.



I asked for you to confirm that statement and you have dodged and failed to provide a source for that claim. As a pubic figure (due to the case resulting in Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional) - you would think there would have been media reports confirming your claim.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You brought up Judge Walker, not me.

I simply pointed out potentially false statements in YOUR post.



>>>>

Fair enough. But are you saying he isn't married?

False, I didn't say he wasn't married.

I questioned your definitive claim that he was married.



I asked for you to confirm that statement and you have dodged and failed to provide a source for that claim. As a pubic figure (due to the case resulting in Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional) - you would think there would have been media reports confirming your claim.


>>>>

Speaking of dodging. How many posts are you going to dedicate to talking to something other than the behavior vs race false premise which is the title of this thread?

I'll bet you're the energizer bunny when it comes to not talking about that.

And I notice you didn't talk about how Walker's court was the epitome of judicial miscarriage. Keep the topics safe and not about stuff that's exposing the mechanisms of your cult's takeover. I get it. Strategy. Keep it strategic and winning...always winning....never look back and NEVER examine the invisible demons keeping you advocating for what you don't understand about yourself...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fair enough. But are you saying he isn't married?

False, I didn't say he wasn't married.

I questioned your definitive claim that he was married.



I asked for you to confirm that statement and you have dodged and failed to provide a source for that claim. As a pubic figure (due to the case resulting in Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional) - you would think there would have been media reports confirming your claim.


>>>>

Speaking of dodging. How many posts are you going to dedicate to talking to something other than the behavior vs race false premise which is the title of this thread?

You made a claim and have been dodging backing up that claim, how long are you going to dodge before:

A. Providing supporting evidence that your claim was true, or

B. Having the testicular fortitude to say "OK, that might have been hyperbole, I don't really know..."​

Go back and read my posts again, I've already addressed the "behavior v. biology" claim.

1. The SCOTUS already ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that government can target homosexuals acts (which is a behavior).

2. Religion is a behavior and is also protected both from government discrimination and from discrimination by private individuals conducting business.

3. The SCOTUS in Romer v. Evans struck down a State Constitutional Amendment that targeted homosexuals, whether it was a behavior or biological was irrelevant to their decision.

4. 50 years ago blacks would marry and white could marry - nether was denied Civil Marriage. However the "behavior" of wanting to marry someone of a different race was found to be an unconstitutional limitation on the behavioral conduct of private individuals.

5. Various Public Accommodation laws already protect behavior such as deciding to marry or not (marital status), having children or not (parental status), of serving the military or not (veterans status).​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

False, I didn't say he wasn't married.

I questioned your definitive claim that he was married.



I asked for you to confirm that statement and you have dodged and failed to provide a source for that claim. As a pubic figure (due to the case resulting in Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional) - you would think there would have been media reports confirming your claim.


>>>>

Speaking of dodging. How many posts are you going to dedicate to talking to something other than the behavior vs race false premise which is the title of this thread?

You made a claim and have been dodging backing up that claim, how long are you going to dodge before:

A. Providing supporting evidence that your claim was true, or

B. Having the testicular fortitude to say "OK, that might have been hyperbole, I don't really know..."​

Go back and read my posts again, I've already addressed the "behavior v. biology" claim.

1. The SCOTUS already ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that government can target homosexuals acts (which is a behavior).

2. Religion is a behavior and is also protected both from government discrimination and from discrimination by private individuals conducting business.

3. The SCOTUS in Romer v. Evans struck down a State Constitutional Amendment that targeted homosexuals, whether it was a behavior or biological was irrelevant to their decision.

4. 50 years ago blacks would marry and white could marry - nether was denied Civil Marriage. However the "behavior" of wanting to marry someone of a different race was found to be an unconstitutional limitation on the behavioral conduct of private individuals.

5. Various Public Accommodation laws already protect behavior such as deciding to marry or not (marital status), having children or not (parental status), of serving the military or not (veterans status).​

>>>>

1. I assume you mean't "can't" target their acts. Neither can they target the acts of polygamists. Your point? That polygamy should be a legal marriage now? Good luck.

2. Are you saying LGBTs will soon be filing for federal recognition as a religion? I've always maintained that was their best bet at getting the 14th to apply.

3. Blind people shouldn't be targeted either. But DVMs everywhere target them for discrimination and deny them driver's licenses. Turns out they can peform many, but not all the tasks required for the privelege of driving. Likewise, LGBT cultees cannot do all the tasks required of being married: reproducing and qualifying for child adoption are two of those critical tasks. No person espousing publicly as a matter of "pride", lewd sexual exhibitionism may qualify to adopt a child. And no person espousing as a sexual-icon a sexual predator of orphaned teen minors on drugs may qualify either.

4. Race and behaviors are totally different. And you will soon see that be clarified in the courts. A black man wanting to marry a white woman is not the same as a black man wanting to marry a white man. The first qualifies as Male and Female. The second does not. Marriage is about male and female. Driving is about being sighted. No matter how much you want to skew the definitions of the respective institutions/priveleges.

5. Turns out even if blind people really really want to drive, they aren't allowed to. A person's decision-making process does not affect the structure of the institution they want access to. Either they qualify for the privelege or they don't. And remember, many many people can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they were born blind and can do nothing about it. LGBT cultees need to explain what "bi-curious" is before they make one more single claim of being "born that way"..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Speaking of dodging. How many posts are you going to dedicate to talking to something other than the behavior vs race false premise which is the title of this thread?

You made a claim and have been dodging backing up that claim, how long are you going to dodge before:

A. Providing supporting evidence that your claim was true, or

B. Having the testicular fortitude to say "OK, that might have been hyperbole, I don't really know..."​

Go back and read my posts again, I've already addressed the "behavior v. biology" claim.

1. The SCOTUS already ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that government can target homosexuals acts (which is a behavior).

2. Religion is a behavior and is also protected both from government discrimination and from discrimination by private individuals conducting business.

3. The SCOTUS in Romer v. Evans struck down a State Constitutional Amendment that targeted homosexuals, whether it was a behavior or biological was irrelevant to their decision.

4. 50 years ago blacks would marry and white could marry - nether was denied Civil Marriage. However the "behavior" of wanting to marry someone of a different race was found to be an unconstitutional limitation on the behavioral conduct of private individuals.

5. Various Public Accommodation laws already protect behavior such as deciding to marry or not (marital status), having children or not (parental status), of serving the military or not (veterans status).​

>>>>

1. I assume you mean't "can't" target their acts. Neither can they target the acts of polygamists. Your point? That polygamy should be a legal marriage now? Good luck.

2. Are you saying LGBTs will soon be filing for federal recognition as a religion? I've always maintained that was their best bet at getting the 14th to apply.

3. Blind people shouldn't be targeted either. But DVMs everywhere target them for discrimination and deny them driver's licenses. Turns out they can peform many, but not all the tasks required for the privelege of driving. Likewise, LGBT cultees cannot do all the tasks required of being married: reproducing and qualifying for child adoption are two of those critical tasks. No person espousing publicly as a matter of "pride", lewd sexual exhibitionism may qualify to adopt a child. And no person espousing as a sexual-icon a sexual predator of orphaned teen minors on drugs may qualify either.

4. Race and behaviors are totally different. And you will soon see that be clarified in the courts. A black man wanting to marry a white woman is not the same as a black man wanting to marry a white man. The first qualifies as Male and Female. The second does not. Marriage is about male and female. Driving is about being sighted. No matter how much you want to skew the definitions of the respective institutions/priveleges.

5. Turns out even if blind people really really want to drive, they aren't allowed to. A person's decision-making process does not affect the structure of the institution they want access to. Either they qualify for the privelege or they don't. And remember, many many people can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they were born blind and can do nothing about it. LGBT cultees need to explain what "bi-curious" is before they make one more single claim of being "born that way"..

Please show us any state in the union that requires couples be able to have children as one of the requirements of Civil Marriage.

As a matter of fact for some couples they have to prove they CANNOT have children to be able to Civilly Marry.

And secondly, there is no reason same-sex couples who go through the same screening as different-sex couples for background checks and quality of the home can't adopt. Psst - gays can already adopt (LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

4. Race and behaviors are totally different.

Under your premise the SCOTUS would have ruled in favor or Texas in the Lawrence v. Texas case because you call homosexual acts a "behavior".



Yet they didn't, they ruled - using your term - that such restrictions were unconstitutional.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

4. Race and behaviors are totally different.

Under your premise the SCOTUS would have ruled in favor or Texas in the Lawrence v. Texas case because you call homosexual acts a "behavior".



Yet they didn't, they ruled - using your term - that such restrictions were unconstitutional.



>>>>

What one does in one's bedroom, legal or not, does not automatically qualify one to rewrite society's terms of marriage.