Congratulations, Oklahoma!!

[daws101]

ite Wide Rules And Guidelines:

The following Rules Apply Everywhere unless otherwise stated on USMB, including Posts, Chat Box, Private Messages, Visitor Messages, Reputation Comments, and Signatures:
When starting a new Thread, please first check and confirm that there are not Current Threads, on the Same Topic, This will Avoid Merges. Please select the forum that best relates to the subject matter of your topic. Opening Posts require more than a Copy and Paste with a Link, You need to include relevant, on topic material of your own. When posting a new topic do not use the CAPS lock.

No Direct or implied threats of violence/harm towards another member, or members family and/or threats with the intent of interfering in or disrupting a member's life.

No Attacks on family members.

No Accusations of other members relating to bestiality or pedophilia.

No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards.

You may not disclose any personal information about other members. Name, E-Mail, phone number, address, occupation, pictures, quotes, etc. that has NOT first been posted here at USMB by the member themselves (Include Link), this includes links to sites that contain said personal information. No Off Site Data Mining Members.

No Posting contents of PMs without permission from the sender. A Rep Comment is Not considered a PM. Responses to a Rep comment are considered PM's.

Foul language (profanity) will be loosely tolerated and at the moderators discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub-forum.

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

No Linking to, discussing, or promoting other Message Boards Anywhere on the Site.

Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.

No Spamming. Multiple posting of the same thing, advertising and links to other sites.

No Cross posting. Cross posting is posting the same content repeatedly or in multiple forums. Pick one.

Off-topic posts may be edited, trashed, deleted, or moved to an appropriate forum as per administrator & moderator discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub forum.

When placed on Ignore by a Member, You may Pos and Neg Rep them. You may not PM, VM, or @Mention them, it is considered harassment.

Administrator and Moderator Official Posts are generally Posted in Red. They are Directives. Please adhere to them. Do Not Neg Rep them. Do Not Comment on them.

Not All Rules and Regulations are written. Not every circumstance can be foreseen. Moderator Discretion does apply. When in doubt, PM an Administrator or Moderator.

All violations will be subject to action by an Admin/Mod. Action taken could range from a warning, to Infraction, to banning and will be at Admin/Mod discretion.

 

[Silhouette]

It's also against the rules to cite the rules in your post.

Strawman/diversion circumvented and now back to the topic. Where were we? Oh yes, that's right:

If you have to go back 30 years to find a case to prove your point, and a weak one at that.

How is it that the young man Milk had a relationship at 17 was a "child", but Trayvon Martin was an adult thug who totally deserved to be shot?

Why distract with another issue like that ? Can't yall stay on topic ? Matters not how far back one goes, but what matters is how people have brought this guy foward once they knew how he was, and then he is added into the glorification of something proudly, even though they knew how he was ? wow!

You say she makes a weak point, but you agree that she has a point, so good for you at being honest here on that note.

Well put Beagle.

Jack McKinley, the orphaned suicidal boy on drugs that Harvey Milk took in, officiated as a 'father figure' for and sodomized at the same time, was 16, not 17 when the crimes began. He was a legal minor in the state of New York at the time. He killed himself on Milk's birthday, long after Milk had discarded him for new teen toys, one after the other as Milk himself aged into his 40s.

From the biography of Harvey Milk, by his longtime gay friend Randy Shilts [the part of the article below in red bold]:

What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)

What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, “Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems”?

In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man “demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys.”

But you can call him Harvey Milk.

Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White....

...Merriam Webster defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.” It defines “statutory rape” as “the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law.”

Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist. After I publicly addressed this objective reality in the above-mentioned interview, the liberal blogosphere reacted in, shall we say, an informatively defensive manner.

A Huffington Post headline screamed: “Harvey Milk Was An ‘Evil Man’ Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber.”

The always-amusing Right Wing Watch blog breathlessly posted my comments with the header: “Barber: ‘Harvey Milk Was Demonstrably, Categorically an Evil Man.’”

And so on.

Here’s what’s especially telling about their reaction. Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.

That’s because they can’t.

One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.

Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.

Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane....

...Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

Years later McKinley committed suicide. America honors a sexual predator on a postage stamp

And..

The part in bold dark blue above in my last post depicts, in a nutshell, the problem with the LGBT movement in present time, today, this very minute. "informatively defensive" That's the legal hinge: the keywords to what this problem of Harvey Milk is all about.

 

[Silhouette]

Does that make sense to you daws?

 

[daws101]

Does that make sense to you daws?

does what make sense to me?
if you mean you've beaten a dead horse into mush, then it does..

 

[BDBoop]

Does that make sense to you daws?

does what make sense to me?
if you mean you've beaten a dead horse into mush, then it does..

I'm in mourning for the horse burger.

 

[daws101]

Does that make sense to you daws?

does what make sense to me?
if you mean you've beaten a dead horse into mush, then it does..

I'm in mourning for the horse burger.

it's not burger anymore!

 

[Silhouette]

That stuff is pretty hard to answer to honestly without betraying yourselves and your cause. So I get the diversions. I do. But sooner or later, probably this year even, you're going to have to wake up and smell the state's "unquestioned authority" and how there are good reasons to deny gay marriage within the boundaries of a state.

The 14th cannot apply to behaviors when it comes to marriage. As with the case in California's Prop 8 and others worded same or simliar. "Between a man and a woman" does not single out gays for exclusion. It shows a number of people, along with other statutes, that cannot marry because they don't qualify for the PRIVELEGE of marriage. Polygamists cannot marry. Minors cannot marry. Close blood relatives cannot marry.

So, don't feel singled out, because you're not. And, there's no provision in the Constitution protecting human behaviors besides religion. All others are subject to local regulations and customs. So either make the church/cult of LGBT an official religion or take down your hopes that the 14th will guarantee you marriage in each state. Start writing those ballot initiatives and wooing voters if you want gay marriage legal in Utah, California and all the other states that set qualifiers as "between one man and one woman"..

 

[Seawytch]

That stuff is pretty hard to answer to honestly without betraying yourselves and your cause. So I get the diversions. I do. But sooner or later, probably this year even, you're going to have to wake up and smell the state's "unquestioned authority" and how there are good reasons to deny gay marriage within the boundaries of a state.

The 14th cannot apply to behaviors when it comes to marriage. As with the case in California's Prop 8 and others worded same or simliar. "Between a man and a woman" does not single out gays for exclusion. It shows a number of people, along with other statutes, that cannot marry because they don't qualify for the PRIVELEGE of marriage. Polygamists cannot marry. Minors cannot marry. Close blood relatives cannot marry.

So, don't feel singled out, because you're not. And, there's no provision in the Constitution protecting human behaviors besides religion. All others are subject to local regulations and customs. So either make the church/cult of LGBT an official religion or take down your hopes that the 14th will guarantee you marriage in each state. Start writing those ballot initiatives and wooing voters if you want gay marriage legal in Utah, California and all the other states that set qualifiers as "between one man and one woman"..

Isn't it pretty? (and getting prettier by the minute!)

 

[Fang]

I was invited to a gay marriage a few weeks a go and did not attend on principal. So laws can be passed but it won't change how the majority of people feel. I just could not stomach watching two men hold hands and kiss. I guarantee you the straight men that voted yes to gay marriage feel the same way.

 

[Silhouette]

I was invited to a gay marriage a few weeks a go and did not attend on principal. So laws can be passed but it won't change how the majority of people feel. I just could not stomach watching two men hold hands and kiss. I guarantee you the straight men that voted yes to gay marriage feel the same way.

This is a very excellent point you just made. It's the double-standard-proof's-in-the-pudding phenomenon. Or to shorten it, the Prop 8 phenomenon. The polls predicted a loss for Prop 8, but apparently when alone in the voting booth, the visceral rejection you just mentioned expresses itself time and time again.

I remember once when my kid was playing soccer and I arrived rather late to the bleachers, I found a slew of yuppy moms sitting there chatting as usual. This was a liberal area rife with gays everywhere near the bay area. Then approached a lesbian couple. In strict adherence to the church of LGBT, one of the lesbians officated as a "man", the other as a woman [oddly, attracted to a male-appearing companion?]. They sat down next to each other snuggling and holding hands.

Upon their arrival, I kid you not, all those yuppy moms who were chatting happily and relaxed suddenly went quiet as if a gunshot just went off. Backs stiffened and almost in unison, backs shifted ever so slightly to face the lesbian couple. The talk was muffled then, murmurs, tense, finally just awkward silence.

People got up and practically ran out of there after the game was over. I guarantee you that almost every woman on those bleachers there would say to a polling person, "oh yes, I believe gays should get married!" [if she felt anyone was around who might see her objection as objectionable]. That's just how social women are. Men too, but to a lesser degree.

And yeah, two guys kissing causes an immediate much worse visceral reaction in people. It may just be a cultural thing, but it really feels more genetic, like it was "born that way"...lol..

 

[Silhouette]

That stuff is pretty hard to answer to honestly without betraying yourselves and your cause. So I get the diversions. I do. But sooner or later, probably this year even, you're going to have to wake up and smell the state's "unquestioned authority" and how there are good reasons to deny gay marriage within the boundaries of a state.

The 14th cannot apply to behaviors when it comes to marriage. As with the case in California's Prop 8 and others worded same or simliar. "Between a man and a woman" does not single out gays for exclusion. It shows a number of people, along with other statutes, that cannot marry because they don't qualify for the PRIVELEGE of marriage. Polygamists cannot marry. Minors cannot marry. Close blood relatives cannot marry.

So, don't feel singled out, because you're not. And, there's no provision in the Constitution protecting human behaviors besides religion. All others are subject to local regulations and customs. So either make the church/cult of LGBT an official religion or take down your hopes that the 14th will guarantee you marriage in each state. Start writing those ballot initiatives and wooing voters if you want gay marriage legal in Utah, California and all the other states that set qualifiers as "between one man and one woman"..

Isn't it pretty? (and getting prettier by the minute!)

Hey Seawytch. Why doesn't Utah have "pretty rainbow colors" on your map? Or Oklahoma? How many of those states in rainbow colors actually voted to approve gay marriage, rather than had it forced upon them by judicial activism?

You realize of course that if SCOTUS finds for Utah, all those latter states I just mentioned will immediately turn white again, right? You understand how equal application among the 50 states applies, don't you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was invited to a gay marriage a few weeks a go and did not attend on principal. So laws can be passed but it won't change how the majority of people feel. I just could not stomach watching two men hold hands and kiss. I guarantee you the straight men that voted yes to gay marriage feel the same way.

I was invited to an interracial marriage a few weeks a go and did not attend on principal. So laws can be passed but it won't change how the majority of people feel. I just could not stomach watching an interracial couple hold hands and kiss.

“[The Framers] knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

This was true in 1967, and it is true today.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th cannot apply to behaviors when it comes to marriage.

No one said it did, because this makes no sense.

The 14th Amendment compels the states to allow American citizens who reside within the state access to all state laws, including marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That stuff is pretty hard to answer to honestly without betraying yourselves and your cause. So I get the diversions. I do. But sooner or later, probably this year even, you're going to have to wake up and smell the state's "unquestioned authority" and how there are good reasons to deny gay marriage within the boundaries of a state.

The 14th cannot apply to behaviors when it comes to marriage. As with the case in California's Prop 8 and others worded same or simliar. "Between a man and a woman" does not single out gays for exclusion. It shows a number of people, along with other statutes, that cannot marry because they don't qualify for the PRIVELEGE of marriage. Polygamists cannot marry. Minors cannot marry. Close blood relatives cannot marry.

So, don't feel singled out, because you're not. And, there's no provision in the Constitution protecting human behaviors besides religion. All others are subject to local regulations and customs. So either make the church/cult of LGBT an official religion or take down your hopes that the 14th will guarantee you marriage in each state. Start writing those ballot initiatives and wooing voters if you want gay marriage legal in Utah, California and all the other states that set qualifiers as "between one man and one woman"..

Isn't it pretty? (and getting prettier by the minute!)

Americans realizing their civil liberties is a beautiful thing.

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th Amendment compels the states to allow American citizens who reside within the state access to all state laws, including marriage law.

But that's not how reality operates. By your logic then, all citizens who reside within any state can have a valid driver's license, even if they're blind. Or men can walk into any woman's lockerroom because women can legally go in there.

You are saying there are no qualifiers for any legal situation with perks like driving or using a lockerroom with showers etc. Everyone must be allowed access according to your logic. I'm thinking that SCOTUS will use wisdom and not blind justice on the Utah case. The Supreme Court is known for its wisdom-rulings more than any other court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're really flailing around.

"But, but, but the children" has already failed in court.

Noted: Your trivializing people who emulate a minor teen orphan sex predator accessing orphans to adopt via that perk of marriage. ie: your trivializing reasonable potential to cause harm to adoptable orphans.

Noted: Your continued defense, implied, of the lifestyle of Harvey Milk...

Noted: your thesis is equally applicable to homosexual sex predators "accessing orphans to adopt via that perk of marriage."

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's what you do when you've been pwned in an argument.

It's also against the rules.

You are trivializing the rules now, koshergrl, and have been reported.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Noted: Your trivializing people who emulate a minor teen orphan sex predator accessing orphans to adopt via that perk of marriage. ie: your trivializing reasonable potential to cause harm to adoptable orphans.

Noted: Your continued defense, implied, of the lifestyle of Harvey Milk...

If you have to go back 30 years to find a case to prove your point, and a weak one at that.

How is it that the young man Milk had a relationship at 17 was a "child", but Trayvon Martin was an adult thug who totally deserved to be shot?

Why distract with another issue like that ? Can't yall stay on topic ? Matters not how far back one goes, but what matters is how people have brought this guy foward once they knew how he was, and then he is added into the glorification of something proudly, even though they knew how he was ? wow!

You say she makes a weak point, but you agree that she has a point, so good for you at being honest here on that note.

the only point is the heterosexual predators do the same thing

 

[JakeStarkey]

The part in bold dark blue above in my last post depicts, in a nutshell, the problem with the LGBT movement in present time, today, this very minute. "informatively defensive" That's the legal hinge: the keywords to what this problem of Harvey Milk is all about.

This point by Sil points out the problem of heterosexuals who will smear homosexuals with allegations concerning marriage that are effectively applicable to heterosexuals.

We are seeing hetero-fascism at its worst.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is wrong when posting this: "The 14th cannot apply to behaviors when it comes to marriage"

SCOTUS and other federal rulings deny her allegation.

She is mad she has lost the argument on the Board and is terrified SCOTUS will use its wisdom and just to overthrow in law her beliefs when it opines on marriage.