Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

[mal]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... ***** with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

 

[Luissa]

read the last sentence of that paragraph.

 

[mal]

read the last sentence of that paragraph.

Unlike the Judge, I don't have the Power to Overturn the Majority and Ignore Supreme Court Precedent from the Bench...

He does... And it's Obvious why he did in this Case.

He should be Impeached.



peace...

 

[Yurt]

mal...cite the other cases saying marriage is a fundamental right....

 

[Dr Grump]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival.".

Cool...so why do homophobes give a shit if homos get married or not?

I could understand their concern if homosexuality WAS fundamental to our very existence and survival. But it's not. So who cares? Oh, that's right, homophobes and people who would deny basic civil rights to their fellow human beings. Oh, and religious fundamentalist whackjobs...

 

[mal]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival.".

Cool...so why do homophobes give a shit if homos get married or not?

I could understand their concern if homosexuality WAS fundamental to our very existence and survival. But it's not. So who cares? Oh, that's right, homophobes and people who would deny basic civil rights to their fellow human beings. Oh, and religious fundamentalist whackjobs...

Homosexuals aren't Denied Marriage... They are Denied the Ability to Redefine it...



peace...

 

[mal]

mal...cite the other cases saying marriage is a fundamental right....

Supreme Court Cases?...



peace...

 

[Ravi]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... ***** with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

YOUR marriage isn't fundamental to our survival. In fact, restricting your ability to spawn would probably be beneficial to humankind.

 

[mal]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... ***** with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

YOUR marriage isn't fundamental to our survival. In fact, restricting your ability to spawn would probably be beneficial to humankind.

And someone along the line before you should've Swallowed... World would have been better off!



peace...

 

[topspin]

Republicans hate freedom!

 

[bodecea]

Republicans hate freedom!

Republicans are like Chancey Gardiner then some...They want to watch and then tell us what we can or cannot do in the privacy of our own homes.

 

[theHawk]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival.".

Cool...so why do homophobes give a shit if homos get married or not?

I could understand their concern if homosexuality WAS fundamental to our very existence and survival. But it's not. So who cares? Oh, that's right, homophobes and people who would deny basic civil rights to their fellow human beings. Oh, and religious fundamentalist whackjobs...

No one gives a shit if homos get married. Which is why most people don't want to recognize and legitimize their so-called marriages.

 

[uscitizen]

Divorce seems to be just about as essiential in our society as marriage is.
Why should we deprive homosexuals of the joys of divorce?

 

[mal]

Republicans hate freedom!

Republicans are like Chancey Gardiner then some...They want to watch and then tell us what we can or cannot do in the privacy of our own homes.

Nobody wants to stop what you do in the privacy of your own home.
. Except maybe the Muslims...



peace...

 

[rdean]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival.".

Cool...so why do homophobes give a shit if homos get married or not?

I could understand their concern if homosexuality WAS fundamental to our very existence and survival. But it's not. So who cares? Oh, that's right, homophobes and people who would deny basic civil rights to their fellow human beings. Oh, and religious fundamentalist whackjobs...

No one gives a shit if homos get married. Which is why most people don't want to recognize and legitimize their so-called marriages.

Then why not leave them alone and let them get married?

What makes this ruling so different is that it's "fact based". So what does that mean and why is it different?

Arguments based with "precedent" and "culture" are typical in this type of case. But it's a new day. Gay lifestyle has been researched and studied. Data has been collected.

We know such things as "reparative therapy" and "shock treatment" don't work. One's sexuality cannot be "changed", only "denied".

What are the two things that drives the right crazy? Facts and data.

We know the FBI profile of a pedophile (which I've posted here many times) is a white male in his 40's, married, Christian with two children of his own who identifies as "heterosexual". When this type of evidence is presented in court backed by statistics and data, then suddenly, that idea of gays preying on children flies out the window.

When you point out the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals and the 0 impact from the gays, that flies out the window.

When you point out the very tiny number of gays who want to get married, that impact flies out the window.

The reason it was important to frame this entire argument as "fact based" is because that is how the Supreme Court will have to counter it. "Fact based" arguments are very difficult to overturn. why? Because the other side has to have "better facts" backed up by research and data.

A recent example of this was the "Dover Case". Right Wingnuts believed they had a "slam dunk" (gee, where have I heard that before?). A Bush appointed, right wing judge in a very conservative town. Only the "facts" presented in the case from the scientific community overwhelmed the ridiculous superstitious nonsense. Worse, the right knew they had no case other than "the occult" and so they lied opening themselves up for charges of perjury and possible prosecution.

Look for that in this case once it goes to the next level.

 

[mal]

Cool...so why do homophobes give a shit if homos get married or not?

I could understand their concern if homosexuality WAS fundamental to our very existence and survival. But it's not. So who cares? Oh, that's right, homophobes and people who would deny basic civil rights to their fellow human beings. Oh, and religious fundamentalist whackjobs...

No one gives a shit if homos get married. Which is why most people don't want to recognize and legitimize their so-called marriages.

Then why not leave them alone and let them get married?

What makes this ruling so different is that it's "fact based". So what does that mean and why is it different?

Arguments based with "precedent" and "culture" are typical in this type of case. But it's a new day. Gay lifestyle has been researched and studied. Data has been collected.

We know such things as "reparative therapy" and "shock treatment" don't work. One's sexuality cannot be "changed", only "denied".

What are the two things that drives the right crazy? Facts and data.

We know the FBI profile of a pedophile (which I've posted here many times) is a white male in his 40's, married, Christian with two children of his own who identifies as "heterosexual". When this type of evidence is presented in court backed by statistics and data, then suddenly, that idea of gays preying on children flies out the window.

When you point out the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals and the 0 impact from the gays, that flies out the window.

When you point out the very tiny number of gays who want to get married, that impact flies out the window.

The reason it was important to frame this entire argument as "fact based" is because that is how the Supreme Court will have to counter it. "Fact based" arguments are very difficult to overturn. why? Because the other side has to have "better facts" backed up by research and data.

A recent example of this was the "Dover Case". Right Wingnuts believed they had a "slam dunk" (gee, where have I heard that before?). A Bush appointed, right wing judge in a very conservative town. Only the "facts" presented in the case from the scientific community overwhelmed the ridiculous superstitious nonsense. Worse, the right knew they had no case other than "the occult" and so they lied opening themselves up for charges of perjury and possible prosecution.

Look for that in this case once it goes to the next level.

When a Pedo Focuses on Pre-Pubecent Boys, they are Committing a Homosexual Act of Pedophilia...

You are one of the People who likes to point out Closed Homosexuals who have Kids and a Wife yet you want to make Distinctions when it comes to Molestation?...

It don't wash.



peace...

 

[rdean]

No one gives a shit if homos get married. Which is why most people don't want to recognize and legitimize their so-called marriages.

Then why not leave them alone and let them get married?

What makes this ruling so different is that it's "fact based". So what does that mean and why is it different?

Arguments based with "precedent" and "culture" are typical in this type of case. But it's a new day. Gay lifestyle has been researched and studied. Data has been collected.

We know such things as "reparative therapy" and "shock treatment" don't work. One's sexuality cannot be "changed", only "denied".

What are the two things that drives the right crazy? Facts and data.

We know the FBI profile of a pedophile (which I've posted here many times) is a white male in his 40's, married, Christian with two children of his own who identifies as "heterosexual". When this type of evidence is presented in court backed by statistics and data, then suddenly, that idea of gays preying on children flies out the window.

When you point out the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals and the 0 impact from the gays, that flies out the window.

When you point out the very tiny number of gays who want to get married, that impact flies out the window.

The reason it was important to frame this entire argument as "fact based" is because that is how the Supreme Court will have to counter it. "Fact based" arguments are very difficult to overturn. why? Because the other side has to have "better facts" backed up by research and data.

A recent example of this was the "Dover Case". Right Wingnuts believed they had a "slam dunk" (gee, where have I heard that before?). A Bush appointed, right wing judge in a very conservative town. Only the "facts" presented in the case from the scientific community overwhelmed the ridiculous superstitious nonsense. Worse, the right knew they had no case other than "the occult" and so they lied opening themselves up for charges of perjury and possible prosecution.

Look for that in this case once it goes to the next level.

When a Pedo Focuses on Pre-Pubecent Boys, they are Committing a Homosexual Act of Pedophilia...

You are one of the People who likes to point out Closed Homosexuals who have Kids and a Wife yet you want to make Distinctions when it comes to Molestation?...

It don't wash.



peace...

* Three out of four children who were victimized were female.
* One-third of the convicted offenders had committed a crime against their own child.
* About half of the convicted offenders had a relationship with the child, either through friends or family.
* Only one out of seven inmates reported that their child victim was a stranger.
* Four out of ten child victims suffered forcible rape or another injury from child molesters.

Sex Offender Statistics - Child Molester Statistics

Child molesters molest "children". If a little girl is unavailable, they will go after a "boy" because it's really "children" they are after. But they prefer girls because most are "heterosexual".

I think we have much more to be concerned about from "heterosexuals", such as yourself, than from gays.

 

[mal]

Then why not leave them alone and let them get married?

What makes this ruling so different is that it's "fact based". So what does that mean and why is it different?

Arguments based with "precedent" and "culture" are typical in this type of case. But it's a new day. Gay lifestyle has been researched and studied. Data has been collected.

We know such things as "reparative therapy" and "shock treatment" don't work. One's sexuality cannot be "changed", only "denied".

What are the two things that drives the right crazy? Facts and data.

We know the FBI profile of a pedophile (which I've posted here many times) is a white male in his 40's, married, Christian with two children of his own who identifies as "heterosexual". When this type of evidence is presented in court backed by statistics and data, then suddenly, that idea of gays preying on children flies out the window.

When you point out the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals and the 0 impact from the gays, that flies out the window.

When you point out the very tiny number of gays who want to get married, that impact flies out the window.

The reason it was important to frame this entire argument as "fact based" is because that is how the Supreme Court will have to counter it. "Fact based" arguments are very difficult to overturn. why? Because the other side has to have "better facts" backed up by research and data.

A recent example of this was the "Dover Case". Right Wingnuts believed they had a "slam dunk" (gee, where have I heard that before?). A Bush appointed, right wing judge in a very conservative town. Only the "facts" presented in the case from the scientific community overwhelmed the ridiculous superstitious nonsense. Worse, the right knew they had no case other than "the occult" and so they lied opening themselves up for charges of perjury and possible prosecution.

Look for that in this case once it goes to the next level.

When a Pedo Focuses on Pre-Pubecent Boys, they are Committing a Homosexual Act of Pedophilia...

You are one of the People who likes to point out Closed Homosexuals who have Kids and a Wife yet you want to make Distinctions when it comes to Molestation?...

It don't wash.



peace...

* Three out of four children who were victimized were female.
* One-third of the convicted offenders had committed a crime against their own child.
* About half of the convicted offenders had a relationship with the child, either through friends or family.
* Only one out of seven inmates reported that their child victim was a stranger.
* Four out of ten child victims suffered forcible rape or another injury from child molesters.

Sex Offender Statistics - Child Molester Statistics

Child molesters molest "children". If a little girl is unavailable, they will go after a "boy" because it's really "children" they are after. But they prefer girls because most are "heterosexual".

I think we have much more to be concerned about from "heterosexuals", such as yourself, than from gays.

95% of the Population is Heterosexual...

Figure it out... Homosexual Molestation Occurs FAR more than 5% of the Total of Molestations.

Hell, the Catholic Church is an Example of an Overwhelming Number of Homosexual Molestations...

Check the HIV Rate for them on the East Coast before you Deny the Priests are Homosexual.



peace...

 

[rdean]

When a Pedo Focuses on Pre-Pubecent Boys, they are Committing a Homosexual Act of Pedophilia...

You are one of the People who likes to point out Closed Homosexuals who have Kids and a Wife yet you want to make Distinctions when it comes to Molestation?...

It don't wash.



peace...

* Three out of four children who were victimized were female.
* One-third of the convicted offenders had committed a crime against their own child.
* About half of the convicted offenders had a relationship with the child, either through friends or family.
* Only one out of seven inmates reported that their child victim was a stranger.
* Four out of ten child victims suffered forcible rape or another injury from child molesters.

Sex Offender Statistics - Child Molester Statistics

Child molesters molest "children". If a little girl is unavailable, they will go after a "boy" because it's really "children" they are after. But they prefer girls because most are "heterosexual".

I think we have much more to be concerned about from "heterosexuals", such as yourself, than from gays.

95% of the Population is Heterosexual...

Figure it out... Homosexual Molestation Occurs FAR more than 5% of the Total of Molestations.

Hell, the Catholic Church is an Example of an Overwhelming Number of Homosexual Molestations...

Check the HIV Rate for them on the East Coast before you Deny the Priests are Homosexual.



peace...

Which is an excellent reason why you should stay away from church. The openly gay are no threat since you know who they are.

 

[bodecea]

Then why not leave them alone and let them get married?

What makes this ruling so different is that it's "fact based". So what does that mean and why is it different?

Arguments based with "precedent" and "culture" are typical in this type of case. But it's a new day. Gay lifestyle has been researched and studied. Data has been collected.

We know such things as "reparative therapy" and "shock treatment" don't work. One's sexuality cannot be "changed", only "denied".

What are the two things that drives the right crazy? Facts and data.

We know the FBI profile of a pedophile (which I've posted here many times) is a white male in his 40's, married, Christian with two children of his own who identifies as "heterosexual". When this type of evidence is presented in court backed by statistics and data, then suddenly, that idea of gays preying on children flies out the window.

When you point out the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals and the 0 impact from the gays, that flies out the window.

When you point out the very tiny number of gays who want to get married, that impact flies out the window.

The reason it was important to frame this entire argument as "fact based" is because that is how the Supreme Court will have to counter it. "Fact based" arguments are very difficult to overturn. why? Because the other side has to have "better facts" backed up by research and data.

A recent example of this was the "Dover Case". Right Wingnuts believed they had a "slam dunk" (gee, where have I heard that before?). A Bush appointed, right wing judge in a very conservative town. Only the "facts" presented in the case from the scientific community overwhelmed the ridiculous superstitious nonsense. Worse, the right knew they had no case other than "the occult" and so they lied opening themselves up for charges of perjury and possible prosecution.

Look for that in this case once it goes to the next level.

When a Pedo Focuses on Pre-Pubecent Boys, they are Committing a Homosexual Act of Pedophilia...

You are one of the People who likes to point out Closed Homosexuals who have Kids and a Wife yet you want to make Distinctions when it comes to Molestation?...

It don't wash.



peace...

* Three out of four children who were victimized were female.
* One-third of the convicted offenders had committed a crime against their own child.
* About half of the convicted offenders had a relationship with the child, either through friends or family.
* Only one out of seven inmates reported that their child victim was a stranger.
* Four out of ten child victims suffered forcible rape or another injury from child molesters.

Sex Offender Statistics - Child Molester Statistics

Child molesters molest "children". If a little girl is unavailable, they will go after a "boy" because it's really "children" they are after. But they prefer girls because most are "heterosexual".

I think we have much more to be concerned about from "heterosexuals", such as yourself, than from gays.

Hetero males with young children seem to be statistically the highest.