Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Silhouette]

There is no exclusion Pop of either polygamy or incest marriage. The moment the Court said "marriage cannot be denied to (our favorite deviant sex behaviors)" they legally said "marriage cannot be denied to ANY deviant sex behaviors". You know, when they added that language to the Constitution from the Judicial Branch..

 

[paddymurphy]

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

 

[Silhouette]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

 

[danielpalos]

There is no exclusion Pop of either polygamy or incest marriage. The moment the Court said "marriage cannot be denied to (our favorite deviant sex behaviors)" they legally said "marriage cannot be denied to ANY deviant sex behaviors". You know, when they added that language to the Constitution from the Judicial Branch..

Dear, Sparta had no such special pleading concerns for citizens of the State.

 

[Pop23]

There is no exclusion Pop of either polygamy or incest marriage. The moment the Court said "marriage cannot be denied to (our favorite deviant sex behaviors)" they legally said "marriage cannot be denied to ANY deviant sex behaviors". You know, when they added that language to the Constitution from the Judicial Branch..

To say differently is to interject subjective qualification which would not stand up to the strict scrutiny test of constitutionality.

Or so it would appear.

 

[Pop23]

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no exclusion Pop of either polygamy or incest marriage. The moment the Court said "marriage cannot be denied to (our favorite deviant sex behaviors)" they legally said "marriage cannot be denied to ANY deviant sex behaviors". You know, when they added that language to the Constitution from the Judicial Branch..

When you have an equal protection clause in the Constitution, the Court has to abide by it.

The so-called deviant sex behaviours you refer to are already legal outside of marriage.

 

[Pop23]

There is no exclusion Pop of either polygamy or incest marriage. The moment the Court said "marriage cannot be denied to (our favorite deviant sex behaviors)" they legally said "marriage cannot be denied to ANY deviant sex behaviors". You know, when they added that language to the Constitution from the Judicial Branch..

When you have an equal protection clause in the Constitution, the Court has to abide by it.

The so-called deviant sex behaviours you refer to are already legal outside of marriage.

Sex is not a requirement of marriage, so here is how it works.

Outside of marriage, partnership is legal between siblings. Since the same sex marriage supporters used the 14th amendment for inclussion, there is no sound legal basis to deny siblings this "fundimental" right.

The floor is yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no exclusion Pop of either polygamy or incest marriage. The moment the Court said "marriage cannot be denied to (our favorite deviant sex behaviors)" they legally said "marriage cannot be denied to ANY deviant sex behaviors". You know, when they added that language to the Constitution from the Judicial Branch..

When you have an equal protection clause in the Constitution, the Court has to abide by it.

The so-called deviant sex behaviours you refer to are already legal outside of marriage.

Sex is not a requirement of marriage, so here is how it works.

Outside of marriage, partnership is legal between siblings. Since the same sex marriage supporters used the 14th amendment for inclussion, there is no sound legal basis to deny siblings this "fundimental" right.

The floor is yours.

I don't care if siblings get the right to marry. If they do, they could have gotten it before same sex marriage was upheld.

 

[paddymurphy]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

If you demand they be with a father and mother, rather than the best people available they might end up with a hateful piece of excrement like you. Why take the risk?

 

[Pop23]

There is no exclusion Pop of either polygamy or incest marriage. The moment the Court said "marriage cannot be denied to (our favorite deviant sex behaviors)" they legally said "marriage cannot be denied to ANY deviant sex behaviors". You know, when they added that language to the Constitution from the Judicial Branch..

When you have an equal protection clause in the Constitution, the Court has to abide by it.

The so-called deviant sex behaviours you refer to are already legal outside of marriage.

Sex is not a requirement of marriage, so here is how it works.

Outside of marriage, partnership is legal between siblings. Since the same sex marriage supporters used the 14th amendment for inclussion, there is no sound legal basis to deny siblings this "fundimental" right.

The floor is yours.

I don't care if siblings get the right to marry. If they do, they could have gotten it before same sex marriage was upheld.

In that you would be wrong.

 

[Pop23]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

If you demand they be with a father and mother, rather than the best people available they might end up with a hateful piece of excrement like you. Why take the risk?

That's an argument?

 

[paddymurphy]

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

 

[paddymurphy]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

If you demand they be with a father and mother, rather than the best people available they might end up with a hateful piece of excrement like you. Why take the risk?

That's an argument?

 

[Silhouette]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

If you demand they be with a father and mother, rather than the best people available they might end up with a hateful piece of excrement like you. Why take the risk?

That's an argument?

Yes, Paddy would rather little boys be placed with the gay men who overwhelmingly and predominantly prefer that gender for adoption, rather than with a person advocating that children deserve an institution of marriage that guarantees them both a mother and father. That's the long and short of the cult of LGBT's argument. I warned all of you that "gay marriage" was not the end game in the Plan..

 

[paddymurphy]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

If you demand they be with a father and mother, rather than the best people available they might end up with a hateful piece of excrement like you. Why take the risk?

That's an argument?

Yes, Paddy would rather little boys be placed with the gay men who overwhelmingly and predominantly prefer that gender for adoption, rather than with a person advocating that children deserve an institution of marriage that guarantees them both a mother and father. That's the long and short of the cult of LGBT's argument. I warned all of you that "gay marriage" was not the end game in the Plan..

You do understand, you stupid fuck, that if a child is adopted by a man and women, one of them is sexually attracted to the gender of the child? I suppose you never heard of a father sexually assaulting a daughter? I guess, then, according to you, to assure against any sexual attractions, only gay men should be permitted to adopt girls and only lesbians should adopt boys. That would eliminate the possibility of sexual assault by the parent, wouldn't it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

If you demand they be with a father and mother, rather than the best people available they might end up with a hateful piece of excrement like you. Why take the risk?

That's an argument?

Yes, Paddy would rather little boys be placed with the gay men who overwhelmingly and predominantly prefer that gender for adoption, rather than with a person advocating that children deserve an institution of marriage that guarantees them both a mother and father. That's the long and short of the cult of LGBT's argument. I warned all of you that "gay marriage" was not the end game in the Plan..

Rebuttal? Rebuttal to WHAT? You claim that if children can be adopted by gay people they can also e adopted by wolves? Your moronic assertion that a boy developed "homosexual urges" as the result of being molested and should be subjected to conversion therapy? The shit you say is so laughable it is not anymore worthy of a rebuttal than the assertion that the earth is flat.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

That's exactly what I expected you to say in response to my lucid answers to your 1-5 questions. A retort filled to the brim with ad hominem and completely devoid itself of a substantive rebuttal. Which means, you cannot rebut what I said and that is making you angry.

Yes, that which seems strange to one, does make one fearful/angry. I'm sure the concept of protecting vulnerable orphans from predators adopting them does seem strange to you. Which is precisely the underscore & bold italics of all my points. BTW, while we're on the topic, why is it that 99.9% of the time gay men go to adopt, they only want boys?

You can take your time answering that "strange and hateful" observation...

If you demand they be with a father and mother, rather than the best people available they might end up with a hateful piece of excrement like you. Why take the risk?

That's an argument?

Yes, Paddy would rather little boys be placed with the gay men who overwhelmingly and predominantly prefer that gender for adoption, rather than with a person advocating that children deserve an institution of marriage that guarantees them both a mother and father. That's the long and short of the cult of LGBT's argument. I warned all of you that "gay marriage" was not the end game in the Plan..

Liar!!


Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
See Dr. Herek's blog
for updates.
Open bibliography
in a separate
window

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.

In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

 

[mdk]

Is Sil peddling that if gays can adopt so can wolves, again? Classic. She hasn't brought that one out in ages. Too funny.

 

[Pop23]

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

I really don't know how to respond. You seem to live in your own strange, little world. Have you been diagnosed? I mean, your thought are really not rational. There has never been s case where a plaintiff in a discrimination case had to prove their race or ethnicity with a test.

I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.

I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.

I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.

Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that

My argument remains.

I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"

All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.

Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor