Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Montrovant]

What is "gays"? I guess we should talk about that first before we decide whether or not "gays" are protected. Did you forget that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to behaviors? The only loophole for you there is for LGBTs to FINALLY declare themselves a religion...which is what they factually are...

I sometimes wonder if even you know what you are talking about.....

 

[Silhouette]

What is "gays"? I guess we should talk about that first before we decide whether or not "gays" are protected. Did you forget that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to behaviors? The only loophole for you there is for LGBTs to FINALLY declare themselves a religion...which is what they factually are...

I sometimes wonder if even you know what you are talking about.....

Yes, that's another variation on the diversion whose underlying message is "don't go there"..

We HAVE to "go there" before we declare you a static class worthy of protection under the 14th that is dominant to 1st Amendment rights and states' rights to self-govern.

 

[Montrovant]

What is "gays"? I guess we should talk about that first before we decide whether or not "gays" are protected. Did you forget that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to behaviors? The only loophole for you there is for LGBTs to FINALLY declare themselves a religion...which is what they factually are...

I sometimes wonder if even you know what you are talking about.....

Yes, that's another variation on the diversion whose underlying message is "don't go there"..

We HAVE to "go there" before we declare you a static class worthy of protection under the 14th that is dominant to 1st Amendment rights and states' rights to self-govern.

Please, give specifics of how sexual orientation is somehow a religion. Be clear as to why homosexuality is, but heterosexuality is not. I'd also like to know what ruling decided that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to behaviors. I'd also like to know if you consider heterosexuality a behavior or just homosexuality, and if only the latter, why that is a behavior but the former not.

It's not that people are using diversion tactics against you, it's that you say such ridiculous, nonsensical crap (and repeat ridiculous, nonsensical crap over and over) that people don't often bother with a well thought out rebuttal.

Prove your assertions, or even give a little bit of unambiguous evidence they are true, and perhaps you'll see better responses.

 

[Skylar]

What is "gays"? I guess we should talk about that first before we decide whether or not "gays" are protected. Did you forget that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to behaviors? The only loophole for you there is for LGBTs to FINALLY declare themselves a religion...which is what they factually are...

Now you're pretending you don't know who 'gays' are? Sigh....semantic games aren't going to help you. As you pretending not to know who we're talking about doesn't effect the USSC's ability to rule in the slightest.

And LFGT isn't a 'religion'. It isn't a 'cult'. It isn't any of the silly, batshit nonsense you've made up.

You're breaking down, Sil.

 

[Skylar]

What is "gays"? I guess we should talk about that first before we decide whether or not "gays" are protected. Did you forget that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to behaviors? The only loophole for you there is for LGBTs to FINALLY declare themselves a religion...which is what they factually are...

I sometimes wonder if even you know what you are talking about.....

He really doesn't. Sil's making this shit up as he goes along. None of the 'legal' standards Sil has invented actually exist. The court isn't bound to any of the silly nonsense Sil insists they 'must' do. Nor is there a vast international conspiracy involving Gallup and all other polling agencies that show public support for same sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Please, give specifics of how sexual orientation is somehow a religion. Be clear as to why homosexuality is, but heterosexuality is not. ...

I wish I could. That's the problem. I know that when a woman is attracted to a man, she's attracted to masculine qualities and a penis. So when a woman is attracted to women, why are about half of those supposed "lesbians" attracted to masculine qualities and a woman wearing a strapon penis?

I wish I could answer you with specifics on those very important questions. Trouble is, neither I nor you know how to answer them without pointing out the obvious closeted heterosexuality in roughly 1/2 of all "lesbians".

 

[dcraelin]

The highest court in Europe, an area most would consider much more socially liberal has said there is no "right" to gay marriage. Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage Antoine Buyse Law The Guardian

Another way to look at this is that it isn't up to the courts to define a word....they should interpret the law given existing definitions....Thus if they think it unfair gays cant "marry"...then they need to strike out marriage within government entirely. And, outline the areas the state must provide equality on,IF they want to provide some sort of civil partnership law.

 

[Silhouette]

The highest court in Europe, an area most would consider much more socially liberal has said there is no "right" to gay marriage. Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage Antoine Buyse Law The Guardian

Another way to look at this is that it isn't up to the courts to define a word....they should interpret the law given existing definitions....Thus if they think it unfair gays cant "marry"...then they need to strike out marriage within government entirely. And, outline the areas the state must provide equality on,IF they want to provide some sort of civil partnership law.

Well put sir.

 

[Skylar]

The highest court in Europe, an area most would consider much more socially liberal has said there is no "right" to gay marriage. Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage Antoine Buyse Law The Guardian

Another way to look at this is that it isn't up to the courts to define a word....they should interpret the law given existing definitions....Thus if they think it unfair gays cant "marry"...then they need to strike out marriage within government entirely. And, outline the areas the state must provide equality on,IF they want to provide some sort of civil partnership law.

If the definition itself is unequal, then the courts need to address it. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. Yet the courts overturned these bans as the definitions themselves were invalid.

Which is the same place that same sex marriage bans break.

 

[Montrovant]

Please, give specifics of how sexual orientation is somehow a religion. Be clear as to why homosexuality is, but heterosexuality is not. ...

I wish I could. That's the problem. I know that when a woman is attracted to a man, she's attracted to masculine qualities and a penis. So when a woman is attracted to women, why are about half of those supposed "lesbians" attracted to masculine qualities and a woman wearing a strapon penis?

I wish I could answer you with specifics on those very important questions. Trouble is, neither I nor you know how to answer them without pointing out the obvious closeted heterosexuality in roughly 1/2 of all "lesbians".

And I'm sure you can explain where you get this information about what women are attracted to in men and what lesbians are attracted to....it couldn't be that you're either making it up completely or paraphrasing someone else that made it up completely, could it?

 

[Silhouette]

Please, give specifics of how sexual orientation is somehow a religion. Be clear as to why homosexuality is, but heterosexuality is not. ...

I wish I could. That's the problem. I know that when a woman is attracted to a man, she's attracted to masculine qualities and a penis. So when a woman is attracted to women, why are about half of those supposed "lesbians" attracted to masculine qualities and a woman wearing a strapon penis?

I wish I could answer you with specifics on those very important questions. Trouble is, neither I nor you know how to answer them without pointing out the obvious closeted heterosexuality in roughly 1/2 of all "lesbians".

And I'm sure you can explain where you get this information about what women are attracted to in men and what lesbians are attracted to....it couldn't be that you're either making it up completely or paraphrasing someone else that made it up completely, could it?

Yes, I'm "completely making up" that lesbians usually come in pairs with one looking/acting/seeming like a regular hetero woman while swaggering alongside her is what is for all intents and purposes an actual man, minus the penis. Yep. I'm the very first person to have noticed that as an actual phenomenon!

Wanna try again and this time try to salvage just a wee bit of your credibility?

 

[dcraelin]

The highest court in Europe, an area most would consider much more socially liberal has said there is no "right" to gay marriage. Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage Antoine Buyse Law The Guardian

Another way to look at this is that it isn't up to the courts to define a word....they should interpret the law given existing definitions....Thus if they think it unfair gays cant "marry"...then they need to strike out marriage within government entirely. And, outline the areas the state must provide equality on,IF they want to provide some sort of civil partnership law.

If the definition itself is unequal, then the courts need to address it. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. Yet the courts overturned these bans as the definitions themselves were invalid.

Which is the same place that same sex marriage bans break.

no, in Loving they overturned specific laws. They didnt change the definition of a long-standing term.
THe laws they would have to overturn here would be every state marriage law on the books...force the states to
replace the term and outline areas of the law that must treat these people equally.

 

[Skylar]

The highest court in Europe, an area most would consider much more socially liberal has said there is no "right" to gay marriage. Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage Antoine Buyse Law The Guardian

Another way to look at this is that it isn't up to the courts to define a word....they should interpret the law given existing definitions....Thus if they think it unfair gays cant "marry"...then they need to strike out marriage within government entirely. And, outline the areas the state must provide equality on,IF they want to provide some sort of civil partnership law.

If the definition itself is unequal, then the courts need to address it. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. Yet the courts overturned these bans as the definitions themselves were invalid.

Which is the same place that same sex marriage bans break.

no, in Loving they overturned specific laws. They didnt change the definition of a long-standing term.

It most certainly did change the meaning of marriage in those states that had interracial marriage bans.. As a 'marriage' was not a black and white couple. It was a black OR white couple. The courts assessed the definitions and found that they were unconstitutional.

The questions before the court now are if a same sex couple can have a marriage license denied to them under the 14th amendment. As there are specific laws that prevent this. If they definitions in those laws are unconstitutional, they laws are invalid.

 

[Silhouette]

It most certainly did change the meaning of marriage in those states that had interracial marriage bans.. As a 'marriage' was not a black and white couple. It was a black OR white couple. The courts assessed the definitions and found that they were unconstitutional.

The questions before the court now are if a same sex couple can have a marriage license denied to them under the 14th amendment. As there are specific laws that prevent this. If they definitions in those laws are unconstitutional, they laws are invalid.

Notice how Skylar slipped the word "interracial" where he should have said "gay or sodomy marriage"? I noticed

Skylar, his point was that decriminalizing something doesn't make it immediately legitimate in society and equal to all other things in access to rights and priveleges. It just means that the legal system has become too exhausted trying to police it into people's private homes.

Think of it this way. It's like if a state decriminalized the use of heroin in the privacy of one's home. And then using your logic, heroin dispensers should be on every street corner and even in schools because "heroin addicts want society to accept what they do/what the identify with as a group". "It is hateful and bullying to force heroin users to remain in the closet. If heroin users don't get the full support of society and kids aren't taught "the beauty and natural use of heroin" in health ed, then teenage heroin users will start to get suicidal."

 

[Skylar]

It most certainly did change the meaning of marriage in those states that had interracial marriage bans.. As a 'marriage' was not a black and white couple. It was a black OR white couple. The courts assessed the definitions and found that they were unconstitutional.

The questions before the court now are if a same sex couple can have a marriage license denied to them under the 14th amendment. As there are specific laws that prevent this. If they definitions in those laws are unconstitutional, they laws are invalid.

Notice how Skylar slipped the word "interracial" where he should have said "gay or sodomy marriage"? I noticed

Skylar, his point was that decriminalizing something doesn't make it immediately legitimate in society and equal to all other things in access to rights and priveleges. It just means that the legal system has become too exhausted trying to police it into people's private homes.

Again, you're projecting your beliefs onto me. I never even used the word 'decriminalized' or 'legitimate'.

My point was that if the definitions used by a state are constitutionally invalid, the laws that use those definitions are constitutionally invalid.

Which you didn't touch with10 foot pole.

 

[Montrovant]

Please, give specifics of how sexual orientation is somehow a religion. Be clear as to why homosexuality is, but heterosexuality is not. ...

I wish I could. That's the problem. I know that when a woman is attracted to a man, she's attracted to masculine qualities and a penis. So when a woman is attracted to women, why are about half of those supposed "lesbians" attracted to masculine qualities and a woman wearing a strapon penis?

I wish I could answer you with specifics on those very important questions. Trouble is, neither I nor you know how to answer them without pointing out the obvious closeted heterosexuality in roughly 1/2 of all "lesbians".

And I'm sure you can explain where you get this information about what women are attracted to in men and what lesbians are attracted to....it couldn't be that you're either making it up completely or paraphrasing someone else that made it up completely, could it?

Yes, I'm "completely making up" that lesbians usually come in pairs with one looking/acting/seeming like a regular hetero woman while swaggering alongside her is what is for all intents and purposes an actual man, minus the penis. Yep. I'm the very first person to have noticed that as an actual phenomenon!

Wanna try again and this time try to salvage just a wee bit of your credibility?

I'm not denying that some lesbian couples fit that description. I'm saying I don't think you really have much clue what most lesbian couples are like, and your sweeping generalizations about the desires of women and lesbians are as foolish as your generalizations about all homosexuals. I think you are pretty arrogant to think you can speak for all women and say what it is they find attractive in a man, or another woman for that matter.

 

[Silhouette]

I wish I could. That's the problem. I know that when a woman is attracted to a man, she's attracted to masculine qualities and a penis. So when a woman is attracted to women, why are about half of those supposed "lesbians" attracted to masculine qualities and a woman wearing a strapon penis?

I wish I could answer you with specifics on those very important questions. Trouble is, neither I nor you know how to answer them without pointing out the obvious closeted heterosexuality in roughly 1/2 of all "lesbians"......Yes, I'm "completely making up" that lesbians usually come in pairs with one looking/acting/seeming like a regular hetero woman while swaggering alongside her is what is for all intents and purposes an actual man, minus the penis. Yep. I'm the very first person to have noticed that as an actual phenomenon.

I'm not denying that some lesbian couples fit that description. I'm saying I don't think you really have much clue what most lesbian couples are like, and your sweeping generalizations about the desires of women and lesbians are as foolish as your generalizations about all homosexuals. I think you are pretty arrogant to think you can speak for all women and say what it is they find attractive in a man, or another woman for that matter.

Oh, I have an idea. I lived around the Bay Area San Francisco for some time. That's like living in Florida's swamp region and having someone tell you "I don't think you really have much clue what most alligators are like..." I know. And so does anyone else who's seen a lesbian couple. They know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You can't remake reality by just talking it away.

That as a given, the lingering issue still remains, how can you pin a static status on a group that isn't even self-aware enough to see the glaring closeted hetero behaviors in their own population in order to argue that they have "special class and rights and priveleges"? They literally don't even have a firm grasp on their own ranks that shift around from day to day or year to year. That's because behaviors in homo sapiens are not reliably static.

So, that FACT presents a very sticky problem for your legal premise.

 

[Montrovant]

I wish I could. That's the problem. I know that when a woman is attracted to a man, she's attracted to masculine qualities and a penis. So when a woman is attracted to women, why are about half of those supposed "lesbians" attracted to masculine qualities and a woman wearing a strapon penis?

I wish I could answer you with specifics on those very important questions. Trouble is, neither I nor you know how to answer them without pointing out the obvious closeted heterosexuality in roughly 1/2 of all "lesbians"......Yes, I'm "completely making up" that lesbians usually come in pairs with one looking/acting/seeming like a regular hetero woman while swaggering alongside her is what is for all intents and purposes an actual man, minus the penis. Yep. I'm the very first person to have noticed that as an actual phenomenon.

I'm not denying that some lesbian couples fit that description. I'm saying I don't think you really have much clue what most lesbian couples are like, and your sweeping generalizations about the desires of women and lesbians are as foolish as your generalizations about all homosexuals. I think you are pretty arrogant to think you can speak for all women and say what it is they find attractive in a man, or another woman for that matter.

Oh, I have an idea. I lived around the Bay Area San Francisco for some time. That's like living in Florida's swamp region and having someone tell you "I don't think you really have much clue what most alligators are like..." I know. And so does anyone else who's seen a lesbian couple. They know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You can't remake reality by just talking it away.

That as a given, the lingering issue still remains, how can you pin a static status on a group that isn't even self-aware enough to see the glaring closeted hetero behaviors in their own population in order to argue that they have "special class and rights and priveleges"? They literally don't even have a firm grasp on their own ranks that shift around from day to day or year to year. That's because behaviors in homo sapiens are not reliably static.

So, that FACT presents a very sticky problem for your legal premise.

"I lived in the Bay area! Despite my obvious hatred and fear of homosexuality, that makes me an expert on lesbians!" I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Again, I'm not denying that some lesbian couples have a more masculine and a more feminine partner. I'm not even denying the possibility that roughly half of them are set up in such a dynamic. I don't trust your word on the subject, however, since you've spent enormous amounts of time and space telling everyone who will listen that gays are going to cause the downfall of human civilization.

When you also claim that you know that all women are attracted to masculine qualities and penises when they are attracted to men, your credibility doesn't improve.

Do you truly believe that all people fit into such easy boxes that, knowing a small few, you know them all?

 

[dcraelin]

The highest court in Europe, an area most would consider much more socially liberal has said there is no "right" to gay marriage. Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage Antoine Buyse Law The Guardian

Another way to look at this is that it isn't up to the courts to define a word....they should interpret the law given existing definitions....Thus if they think it unfair gays cant "marry"...then they need to strike out marriage within government entirely. And, outline the areas the state must provide equality on,IF they want to provide some sort of civil partnership law.

If the definition itself is unequal, then the courts need to address it. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. Yet the courts overturned these bans as the definitions themselves were invalid.

Which is the same place that same sex marriage bans break.

no, in Loving they overturned specific laws. They didnt change the definition of a long-standing term.

It most certainly did change the meaning of marriage in those states that had interracial marriage bans.. As a 'marriage' was not a black and white couple. It was a black OR white couple. The courts assessed the definitions and found that they were unconstitutional.

The questions before the court now are if a same sex couple can have a marriage license denied to them under the 14th amendment. As there are specific laws that prevent this. If they definitions in those laws are unconstitutional, they laws are invalid.

wish I could remember article in New Republic mag? to refer you too but I believe the state in Loving banned interracial sex...marriage was actually kind of a side issue, I believe this was within a state that had had interracial marriage before. The meaning of the term marriage wasnt in dispute.. It really is here...... Some states have passed laws in an attempt to fend off judicial arrogance on this question. ...but the basic laws with the traditional definitions remain on the books. ..

 

[Skylar]

The meaning of the term marriage wasnt in dispute..

I strongly disagree. 'Miscegenation' wasn't considered marriage. It was a felony. With interracial marriage bans in Virginia dating back to 1664. Literally predating our nation's existence by more than a century. And the fact that the definition of marriage changed is exactly my point: its a malleable term. It means what we says it means. And if we say it means same sex couples, it does.

There's no requirement of marriage that a same sex couple can't meet. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to marry. So why would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? As all the infertile and childless couples marrying or being allowed to remain married demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Which makes exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage pointless, unnecessary, and an abrogation of civil rights.