Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Skylar]

I personally feel the mormon religion is filled to the brim with shallow hypocrites. I guess it's just the 100% of the ones I've run into and had personal encounters with. I'm not fond of any cult, mormon or LGBT..

And you're telling us far more about yourself than you are the Mormons with that statement.

 

[Silhouette]

We were talking about this, remember? What are your intents with regard to children in your campaign. Time for your honest answer..


"Yes, I'll admit I'm focusing the child aspect of denying gay marriage. Now it's time for you to admit you're focusing on the child aspect for approving gay marriage. Fair enough?

In my case you're familiar by now with the boy grown to man that my family knew,? Who was molested, grew up confused, loving women, only compulsively sexual with men from his childhood wounds...promiscuity got him HIV....went out on a vendetta to "kill" as many "who did this to him" as he could be rampant and constant anonymous unprotected sex?

It's children like these that yes, I walk upon their accounts in order to promote a platform of keeping the entire homosexual culture out of the mainstream. What you do in your bedrooms is up to you. What you convince children of as "normal" becomes all of our business once you come out of that bedroom. Sorry. That's called reality. People have a real, instinctive urge to protect children. In my case that doubles from not just my friend but many other kids I've seen swept up in this culture. Remember, I used to live in outlying area to San Francisco.

So I'll own that my campaign is "upon the backs of children" and I gave you my reasons why. Now you own that your campaign is on the backs of children...and do give us your reasons why, won't you? And if not, I guess we all can look to your pride parades in front of them, and with them and your veneration of Harvey Milk as your sexual icon....and the 100% lack of anyone in your ranks speaking out against these atrocities to children as an indication of your intent with respect to children vs mine..."

 

[Syriusly]

I read something disturbing today

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Mormon church acknowledges..

Are you going to be promoting discrimination against Mormons also?

I personally feel the mormon religion is filled to the brim with shallow hypocrites. I guess it's just the 100% of the ones I've run into and had personal encounters with. I'm not fond of any cult, mormon or LGBT.....

I am waiting to see if you will be insisting on the same stringent standards from Mormons that you insist that Homosexuals must abide by- how Homosexuals must denounce Harvey Milk- because you claim he sodomized a 16 year old boy- and you claim that the LGBT community 'worships' Milk.

The Mormon Church was founded by Smith. He married an underage minor- a 14 year old girl and we have exactly as much evidence that they had sex as you have that Milk had sex with an underage minor.

You insist that Gays can't be trusted with marriage or adoption until they denounce Milk.

Will you be spending your time making that same point about Mormons until they denounce the founder of their church?

 

[Syriusly]

We were talking about this, remember? What are your intents with regard to children in your campaign. Time for your honest answer..


"Yes, I'll admit I'm focusing the child aspect of denying gay marriage. Now it's time for you to admit you're focusing on the child aspect for approving gay marriage. Fair enough?

In my case you're familiar by now with the boy grown to man that my family knew,? Who was molested, grew up confused, loving women, only compulsively sexual with men from his childhood wounds...promiscuity got him HIV....went out on a vendetta to "kill" as many "who did this to him" as he could be rampant and constant anonymous unprotected sex?

It's children like these that yes, I walk upon their accounts in order to promote a platform of keeping the entire homosexual culture out of the mainstream. What you do in your bedrooms is up to you. What you convince children of as "normal" becomes all of our business once you come out of that bedroom. Sorry. That's called reality. People have a real, instinctive urge to protect children. In my case that doubles from not just my friend but many other kids I've seen swept up in this culture. Remember, I used to live in outlying area to San Francisco.

So I'll own that my campaign is "upon the backs of children" and I gave you my reasons why. Now you own that your campaign is on the backs of children...and do give us your reasons why, won't you? And if not, I guess we all can look to your pride parades in front of them, and with them and your veneration of Harvey Milk as your sexual icon....and the 100% lack of anyone in your ranks speaking out against these atrocities to children as an indication of your intent with respect to children vs mine..."

And I answered your post

Unlike yourself- I am a parent. I am actually raising a child. I am actually involved in children's lives.

And I have actually attended Pride Parades.

So I actually know something about children and Pride Parades- which you don't.

I have never seen any sexual activity at a Pride Parade- not once- not ever. I am not saying it may not have happened somewhere, sometime- but it is so rare that I have never experienced it, and I don't know anyone who has seen that at a Pride Parade.

Nudity? Sure. But nudity is not the same as sexual activity.

Your continued claim about "your veneration of Harvey Milk as your sexual icon" is just another of your lies. I have pointed this out before- and I will do so again.

You lie in order to attack gay people Silhouette. You do this regularly and intentionally. And it is a sign of how empty your claims are- that the only way you believe you can turn people against homosexuals is to lie.

So what do I do for children? First and foremost I raise my own well. I treat my child's friends well. I teach them not to judge people based upon what they think someone's race or religion or sexual preference is- but to judge people on their actions. And I teach them not to lie. I do so by demonstrating this by not lying.

And Silhouette- your actions have been found to be hateful and bigoted and reprehensible.

You teach children to lie by your actions.

 

[Skylar]

We were talking about this, remember? What are your intents with regard to children in your campaign. Time for your honest answer..

Again, you're projecting. YOU are obsessed with adoption in relation to gay marriage. Its not my motivation. I've already told you what motivates me:

I'm focusing on the 'if you're going to deny rights you need a good reason and you don't have one' issue. Since children aren't necessary for a marriage to be valid, they're essentially irrelevant to the legal questions surrounding same sex marriage

Skylar

And once again, you ignored my motivation, projected yours onto me, and then told me to be 'honest'. Is there anything to your argument beyond assuming that everyone thinks and feels just like you do?

 

[hazlnut]

Looks like you were having a ball, sweetie.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, you're projecting. YOU are obsessed with adoption in relation to gay marriage. Its not my motivation. I've already told you what motivates me:


I'm focusing on the 'if you're going to deny rights you need a good reason and you don't have one' issue. Since children aren't necessary for a marriage to be valid, they're essentially irrelevant to the legal questions surrounding same sex marriage

Skylar

No, I was accused of making my arguments as to this topic using children. And I agreed. Then I told you all my reasons why that was. Then I asked you to define how you also are using children and asked you to describe how. One way of course is pleading to the courts "sanction our "marriages" officially because our children will suffer a stigma if society doesn't let us marry". Which is preposterous because there is nothing worse of a stigma on the playground to a child who offers to his playmates "my mommy and daddy are the same gender". Kids figure out pretty quick that mommies and daddies are the only ones who can make children. The questions will start: "how did your two women or two men parents become 'mommy and daddy' to you". Then the PC police will have to come out to the playground to break up the scuffles when reality meets fiction as the children confront each others "parental arrangements".

Kids do this. And there will be no amount of un-making of reality that will patch up that stigma on the playground.

I'm just getting started..

Another uncontemplated outfall of legitimizing that which can never be [two males or two female replacing "mom and dad"]... if a hapless child like the one in California winds up with two "parents" of the opposite gender to himself. The lesbians in California have a son who *somehow* got it into his head that he no longer wants to be a boy. So the lesbians are drugging him with female hormones to make up his mind later if he wants to be a girl...with the blessings of the State of California, doctors and the LGBT community at large. How do we know? Because the prescription for the drugs was issued by an MD, the State of CA has not sent child protective services in; and no LGBT person to date has publicly denounced this.

That boy has taken the rejection of his gender, modeled by his two female "parents", deep deep into his psyche. "Your gender isn't necessary in this house" becomes the unspoken model offered to that opposite gendered child day after day after day. The child's mind will always render that into "YOU aren't necessary in this house", no matter what mixed messages the adults are sending them [words vs manifest reality].

The conservatives on the Court seem to think we should default in favor of a predictably bad situation for children in favor of "just shutting the gays up and giving them what they want". But their job isn't to placate the whiners. Their job is to protect the constitution and society's right to regulate the environment children are most affected by: marriage.

 

[Skylar]

No, I was accused of making my arguments as to this topic using children.

Oh, you totally are. You're using children like toilet paper to forward your argument. If you actually believed the nonsense you're peddling (that pride parades harm children) then you'd be railing against straight marriage. As most people at Pride are straight. And most folks that bring kids to Pride are straight.

But you don't. Because you could care less about kids. The only time children factor into your argument is if you can bash gays with them. The moment children lose that utility to your argument, they're tossed to the curb by you like so much garbage.

 

[Syriusly]

Kids do this. And there will be no amount of un-making of reality that will patch up that stigma on the playground.
.

I actually remember this as an argument people used to make about why blacks and whites should not marry- because of the stigma that their children would face.

But proponents of marriage equality are not talking about playground stigma- they are talking about legal protections- as Justice Kennedy put it:

JUSTICE KENNEDY:
On the other hand, there is an immediate
legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury,
and that's the voice of these children. There are 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?

 

[Skylar]

Lucky for the opponents of gay marriage, Kennedy has little impact on actual supreme court rulings.

 

[Syriusly]

Lucky for the opponents of gay marriage, Kennedy has little impact on actual supreme court rulings.

And interesting argument was raised in Prop 8- which I hadn't really noticed before:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said,
Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think
that the focus of marriage really should be on
procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses
anymore to any couple where both people are over the age
of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be
constitutional.

Unfortunately they didn't really explore why Mr. Cooper thought that would not be constitutional...but I would suspect its because Americans have a constitutional right to marriage- which is not linked to procreation.

 

[Silhouette]

Lucky for the opponents of gay marriage, Kennedy has little impact on actual supreme court rulings.

And interesting argument was raised in Prop 8- which I hadn't really noticed before:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said,
Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think
that the focus of marriage really should be on
procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses
anymore to any couple where both people are over the age
of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be
constitutional.

Unfortunately they didn't really explore why Mr. Cooper thought that would not be constitutional...but I would suspect its because Americans have a constitutional right to marriage- which is not linked to procreation.

Would't be the first time a plant-attorney had been used for the opposition, and won't be the last. Who was that guy "for traditional marriage" at the arguments early 2013 on DOMA? That guy SOLD that case down the river for traditional marriage people.

I'm telling you, this Neo Rainbow-Reicht is DEDICATED and they have money. Would an attorney sell out his own case behind the scenes? You bet. It happens every single day. Paul Clement did a real knock up job on the DOMA case. At one point advocating for the opposition before people caught him doing it and started questioning his stance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is babbling again.

The facts and Sil's analysis of them on this subject don't add up.

 

[Syriusly]

Lucky for the opponents of gay marriage, Kennedy has little impact on actual supreme court rulings.

And interesting argument was raised in Prop 8- which I hadn't really noticed before:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said,
Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think
that the focus of marriage really should be on
procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses
anymore to any couple where both people are over the age
of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be
constitutional.

Unfortunately they didn't really explore why Mr. Cooper thought that would not be constitutional...but I would suspect its because Americans have a constitutional right to marriage- which is not linked to procreation.

Would't be the first time a plant-attorney had been used for the opposition, and won't be the last. Who was that guy "for traditional marriage" at the arguments early 2013 on DOMA? That guy SOLD that case down the river for traditional marriage people.

I'm telling you, this Neo Rainbow-Reicht is DEDICATED and they have money. Would an attorney sell out his own case behind the scenes? You bet. It happens every single day. Paul Clement did a real knock up job on the DOMA case. At one point advocating for the opposition before people caught him doing it and started questioning his stance.

Bat Guano crazy non-response to my post

And interesting argument was raised in Prop 8- which I hadn't really noticed before:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said,
Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think
that the focus of marriage really should be on
procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses
anymore to any couple where both people are over the age
of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be
constitutional.

Unfortunately they didn't really explore why Mr. Cooper thought that would not be constitutional...but I would suspect its because Americans have a constitutional right to marriage- which is not linked to procreation.

 

[Silhouette]

It is up to SCOTUS to recognize the difference between protecting the Constitution and the lame ability of a floundering attorney. In other words, the Justices KNOW what the merits of the case are before attorneys show up. Their holding a Hearing is just a grandstand for them to vote on how they've already obviously made up their mind.

Case in point: Kagen

Do you think for one minute Kagen would ask leading questions to reflect poorly on the advancements of pride parade/Harvey Milk worshippers (both in front of or with kids) with respect to their gaining legal ground on marriage? She's already made her mind up.

What's confusing is why supposedly conservative Justices would refuse to hear the case and allow attrition to not only destroy marriage [and breed themselves out ideologically within two generations], but also to destroy the ability of the majority to regulate behaviors repugnant to them. Which behaviors will come next? And how would we legally deny them?? Because the majority objects? What about THEIR civil rights too? Equality? Precedent? Any of this getting through?

No, because no cost is too high in the LGBT agenda. And that means their advocates in high places are NOT THINKING CLEARLY. Yes, you don't want to be on the wrong side of history. Why then would you put your name down as one of the shoehorns that placed these people (and their active/passive supporters...0% of LGBTs have spoken out against pride parades or Harvey Milk) in direct legal contact with vulnerable orphans via the loophole of "legal federally-protected marriage"???

 

[Syriusly]

It is up to SCOTUS to recognize the difference between protecting the Constitution and the lame ability of a floundering attorney.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that one has anything to do with the other.

Luckily for you- the Supreme Court decides things on their merit- not by images of you and your kind

 

[Silhouette]

When forced to choose the lesser of two evils in the pictures above, I'd pick the one that is most discouraged within the culture it springs from.

In the case of the hetero who "hates fags", those types of displays are rare and discouraged in the hetero culture. As such they might even be suspect as yet another LGBT ruse to ramp sympathy for their Agenda. The woman looks very...mannish...oddly.. Not many hetero women wear zero makeup and don't have their hair at least combed when they appear in public opposing the gay culture, for example...odd that group would pick a lesbian-looking woman to "represent"...

In the case of the gay naked lewd and vulgar "pride" parades in front of kids, they are ENCOURAGED and are COMMON in the LGBT culture.

Oh what a difference the culture makes with regards to the impact of its individual's antics...

 

[Syriusly]

In the case of the gay naked lewd and vulgar "pride" parades in front of kids, they are ENCOURAGED and are COMMON in the LGBT culture.
..

Nope- the LGBT community doe not encourage nudity and lewd behavior in front of kids- just another lie by you.

And as I have pointed out- far from 'common'- I have never, ever seen any sexual behavior at any Pride Parade.

Since you have never actually seen any Pride Parades, only photos promoted by homophobic bigots, means once again you are speaking out of your posterior.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope- the LGBT community doe not encourage nudity and lewd behavior in front of kids- just another lie by you...

Sorry, I'm not familiar with any statements or links to statements of any (0%) LGBT people denouncing gay pride parades or Harvey Milk. Let me know when you get those here, OK?

 

[Syriusly]

In the case of the gay naked lewd and vulgar "pride" parades in front of kids, they are ENCOURAGED and are COMMON in the LGBT culture.
..

Nope- the LGBT community doe not encourage nudity and lewd behavior in front of kids- just another lie by you.

And as I have pointed out- far from 'common'- I have never, ever seen any sexual behavior at any Pride Parade.

Since you have never actually seen any Pride Parades, only photos promoted by homophobic bigots, means once again you are speaking out of your posterior.

An image from a SF Pride Parade that horrifies Silhouette.....