LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[OKTexas]

"Subsidize"? I thought it was just letting people keep more of what they earned?

Not all, some they give you money even when you pay nothing in. If only it was just keeping what you earned.

So if a same sex couple makes enough money that they barely get any return at all, would you be okay with those same sex couples?

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

 

[OKTexas]

You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.

Where does it say in the constitution that freaks don't enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of the people?


Oh, yeah, it doesn't, in fact the 14th amendment says they have the SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES as everyone else before DUE PROCESS.

Let's see you get these people up in front of a court and declared incompetent to rule their own lives then......

You ignorant fuck, a gay guy has the same rights you do, period end of fucking story. I don't normally neg an asshole unless they do it to me first but keep going and you might be an exception to the rule.

 

[Silhouette]

frigid weirdo is making The Rabbi look silly, but that is not difficult.

Sil is running around in circles.

The far right reactionary weirdos hear the pitter pat of time's little feet getting ready to stomp their hopes and dreams.

So you're certain Utah will be denied the "unquestioned authority" for its consensus to set standards for the privelege of marriage? And in related news, how long do you think the strategists of the LGBT cult can keep the cap on the full disclosure on Harvey Milk's behavior?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

frigid weirdo is making The Rabbi look silly, but that is not difficult.

Sil is running around in circles.

The far right reactionary weirdos hear the pitter pat of time's little feet getting ready to stomp their hopes and dreams.

So you're certain Utah will be denied the "unquestioned authority" for its consensus to set standards for the privelege of marriage? And in related news, how long do you think the strategists of the LGBT cult can keep the cap on the full disclosure on Harvey Milk's behavior?

The outcast of Milkwood returns.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Not all, some they give you money even when you pay nothing in. If only it was just keeping what you earned.

So if a same sex couple makes enough money that they barely get any return at all, would you be okay with those same sex couples?

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

 

[OKTexas]

So if a same sex couple makes enough money that they barely get any return at all, would you be okay with those same sex couples?

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

Funny how most marriages are consummated beforehand? That was common practice for hundreds of years. Made the Victorians nuts actually. It was considered common sense. If you didn't like each other in bed then what chance did you have long-term? Pretty good advice actually.

 

[OKTexas]

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

Funny how most marriages are consummated beforehand? That was common practice for hundreds of years. Made the Victorians nuts actually. It was considered common sense. If you didn't like each other in bed then what chance did you have long-term? Pretty good advice actually.

And?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

Funny how most marriages are consummated beforehand? That was common practice for hundreds of years. Made the Victorians nuts actually. It was considered common sense. If you didn't like each other in bed then what chance did you have long-term? Pretty good advice actually.

And?

And nothing. Just noting human nature, and the utter lack of change.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

How can they get an annulment if you claim they were never legally married in the first place?

For your argument of marriage annulment to hold any sway what-so-ever, you would first have to agree that they were in fact legally married.

 

[Seawytch]

Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.

How can they get an annulment if you claim they were never legally married in the first place?

For your argument of marriage annulment to hold any sway what-so-ever, you would first have to agree that they were in fact legally married.

And I anticipate the response will be...herp derp.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Gay people can't have sex? So what the hell are they getting all naked for then?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You ignorant fuck, a gay guy has the same rights you do, period end of fucking story. I don't normally neg an asshole unless they do it to me first but keep going and you might be an exception to the rule.

WOW, what the hell is all this insulting and swearing for?

If you have a point, make the damn point, if you want to go around swearing like other people i've blocked, you'll end up being blocked too.


You think swearing and trying to intimidate makes you argument any better? It doesn't.

Gay people can't marry the person of their choice, simple as. That is not having the same rights as other people no matter how much you try and be a lousy high school student with a bad attitude problem and a dirty mouth instead of an argument.

I don't care if you neg me, it makes no difference to me whatsoever. However trying to insult me is not debate, and if i wanted to go have a slagging match, I certainly wouldn't come on a politics board, got my drift?

 

[Silhouette]

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Gay people can't have sex? So what the hell are they getting all naked for then?

Sex is the biological function of reproduction. It is why our brains are hardwired to mount and thrust. Doing this with the same gender means there's something mentally wrong with you; if you insist on calling it "sex". What it is properly is assisted masturbation.

In any event, it has nothing to do with procreation, which is part of the argument for Utah's vested interest in creating incentives via the privelege of marriage to encourage people who are having sex [instead of assisted masturbation that will never result in children] to marry. Utah's argument is that they want the acme of coupling to be those people who have the potential to produce children and who present the simplest family unit for maximum care to those children. Just two people, and those two people being man and wife, insures a deep biological instinct to protect that child. And they promote a limited number of offspring inasmuch as one woman can only bear so many children. If you consider that with each new birth in a nuclear family unit, the attention and care each individual child gets is stretched thinner, polygamy decreases that to a transparent thread. Not to mention that a single man in this day and age cannot by himself provide for all those mouths, healthcare and education if we are talking polygamy.

Utah is stating marriage is about the child's welfare and the state's welfare over time and population, balanced. Utah finds by consensus that the best arrangement for this is one man and one woman.

These couples don't always have to produce children. But barren hetero couples do not present a legal problem of the slippery slope. Whereas LGBT situations do. And that slope slides away from a good steady population maintenance and the welfare of children. If gays want to pitch that they as a social group [for ample scientific evidence exists from the most prestigious institutions that aberrent non-child producing sexual orientations are learned] make good parents too, I would bring up the Harvey Milk problem. When 60 + groups of "LGBT" [what is that anyway?...really?] petition for a US postage stamp of Harvey Milk with rainbow "USA" on it, he has become iconic to that behavioral group. The trouble is that his biography states he was into raping teen boys on drugs. Since in spite of that knowledge, LGBT groups do not denounce him and instead defend him, society is forced to examine LGBTs value system under and through the Harvey Milk filter.

So Utah properly should weigh, if push comes to shove, whether or not this new religion belongs around children at all; let alone marrying and gaining a perk of access to adoptable orphans..the most vulnerable citizens of all with no voice at the voting booth and no parents to protect them except the state and the laws it makes and enforces....

Bear in mind that marriage IS a privelege because currently as Utah law is written, gays, polygamists, minors and incestuous couplings are ALL banned from marriage there. Gays are in no way shape or form singled out for discrimination. Though the Harvey Milk situation begs that they should be, and for good cause. Utah discriminates against quite a few people who want to marry there. So either marriage is a free for all the children more and more will suffer though, or there are standards Utah gets to pick to insure the best welfare of each child raised there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.

Gay people can't have sex? So what the hell are they getting all naked for then?

Sex is the biological function of reproduction. It is why our brains are hardwired to mount and thrust. Doing this with the same gender means there's something mentally wrong with you; if you insist on calling it "sex". What it is properly is assisted masturbation.

In any event, it has nothing to do with procreation, which is part of the argument for Utah's vested interest in creating incentives via the privelege of marriage to encourage people who are having sex [instead of assisted masturbation that will never result in children] to marry. Utah's argument is that they want the acme of coupling to be those people who have the potential to produce children and who present the simplest family unit for maximum care to those children. Just two people, and those two people being man and wife, insures a deep biological instinct to protect that child. And they promote a limited number of offspring inasmuch as one woman can only bear so many children. If you consider that with each new birth in a nuclear family unit, the attention and care each individual child gets is stretched thinner, polygamy decreases that to a transparent thread. Not to mention that a single man in this day and age cannot by himself provide for all those mouths, healthcare and education if we are talking polygamy.

Utah is stating marriage is about the child's welfare and the state's welfare over time and population, balanced. Utah finds by consensus that the best arrangement for this is one man and one woman.

These couples don't always have to produce children. But barren hetero couples do not present a legal problem of the slippery slope. Whereas LGBT situations do. And that slope slides away from a good steady population maintenance and the welfare of children. If gays want to pitch that they as a social group [for ample scientific evidence exists from the most prestigious institutions that aberrent non-child producing sexual orientations are learned] make good parents too, I would bring up the Harvey Milk problem. When 60 + groups of "LGBT" [what is that anyway?...really?] petition for a US postage stamp of Harvey Milk with rainbow "USA" on it, he has become iconic to that behavioral group. The trouble is that his biography states he was into raping teen boys on drugs. Since in spite of that knowledge, LGBT groups do not denounce him and instead defend him, society is forced to examine LGBTs value system under and through the Harvey Milk filter.

So Utah properly should weigh, if push comes to shove, whether or not this new religion belongs around children at all; let alone marrying and gaining a perk of access to adoptable orphans..the most vulnerable citizens of all with no voice at the voting booth and no parents to protect them except the state and the laws it makes and enforces....

Bear in mind that marriage IS a privelege because currently as Utah law is written, gays, polygamists, minors and incestuous couplings are ALL banned from marriage there. Gays are in no way shape or form singled out for discrimination. Though the Harvey Milk situation begs that they should be, and for good cause. Utah discriminates against quite a few people who want to marry there. So either marriage is a free for all the children more and more will suffer though, or there are standards Utah gets to pick to insure the best welfare of each child raised there.

There is something wrong with everyone. We've evolved, we all have DNA that is different, no one is the same as another person as far as i can tell. So, normal simply isn't an issue.

Yes, we're designed to reproduce. Yet we have contraception and other things that mean we don't actually need to reproduce. Gay people aren't adding to the too many people on this planet, seems a good thing to me.

Do you think a state needs to promote marriage in order to get people having sex? Really?

It's like saying gay people won't have gay sex unless they're married. It's a ridiculous statement.

You talk about a slippery slope. However all I've seen on this board about the slippery slope is things like "queers are sick" and gay people will destroy marriage (even though straight people have already destroyed it) and many other weird statements that don't seem to be based in reality.

As for children suffering, this is bizarre.

As far as I can tell when it comes to adoption, those who can adopt have to meet rigorous standards, also in many places there aren't enough couples to adopt, kids would be better off in a stable gay family environment than in a children's home which is often really, not great.

 

[Silhouette]

Males and females haven't evolved to be different. Nor has the function of reproduction, the reason intercourse became necessary.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Males and females haven't evolved to be different. Nor has the function of reproduction, the reason intercourse became necessary.

But how necessary is it for every couple to reproduce in the present age? Bear in mind there are 7 billion people and we're struggling to hold down population growth in the world?

 

[Silhouette]

Males and females haven't evolved to be different. Nor has the function of reproduction, the reason intercourse became necessary.

But how necessary is it for every couple to reproduce in the present age? Bear in mind there are 7 billion people and we're struggling to hold down population growth in the world?

The key question with regards to Utah isn't about adults. It's about children. Pay close attention because you keep losing that key concept:

There is no denying the strong bonds of the natural biological child of two parents. A woman has the birth and pregnancy to foster this bond. A man sees his own eyes, chin, nose or hair on his infant and warmly regards him as "a chip off the old block". These two people, should they be in love, are the best two people in the world to raise that child. They see themselves in their child and part of that child; as one. That's why vows implore participants in marriage to stick by each other through thick and thin, to not forsake each other for another. It isn't for their benefit. It is for their children's benefit that this is so. Marriage is about children. It is society's insurance that children [future adult members] receive the best possible upbringing as a rule.

A society has a deeply vested interest in preserving this situation. Gays don't fit the bill. It is physically impossible. Whereas at least with barren hetero couples their pledge to each other doesn't conflict legally with the acme marital situation. The rule: one man and one woman. Gays have not qualified.....especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs.

Marriage is an incentive with perks. It's a reward for certain behaviors. Those behaviors are to be a man and a woman, coming together in love, in a bonded pair to reproduce and produce their own natural children who rely on their relationship to grow into fully fledged, well rounded and productive citizens. No marriage is perfect but the icon is preserved to encourage people to strive for that perfection, that gold ring, so that in so striving a child's chances of health and wellbeing are enhanced. Bestowing "marriage" upon two people of the same gender who regard sex as assisted masturbation and who revere and defend a child sex predator are not qualifying for Utah's standards for its children. Since a basic legal qualification is needed for this man/woman marriage, men and women who are barren at least fit this basic qualification. Gays do not, and cannot ever fit this qualification. Their sexual behavior is never reproductive.

 

[The Rabbi]

Males and females haven't evolved to be different. Nor has the function of reproduction, the reason intercourse became necessary.

But how necessary is it for every couple to reproduce in the present age? Bear in mind there are 7 billion people and we're struggling to hold down population growth in the world?

Still pushing the over population myth? Our problem is under population. Especially in the U.S., especially among middle class people, whose children are most likely to accomplish something.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The key question with regards to Utah isn't about adults. It's about children. Pay close attention because you keep losing that key concept:

There is no denying the strong bonds of the natural biological child of two parents. A woman has the birth and pregnancy to foster this bond. A man sees his own eyes, chin, nose or hair on his infant and warmly regards him as "a chip off the old block". These two people, should they be in love, are the best two people in the world to raise that child. They see themselves in their child and part of that child; as one. That's why vows implore participants in marriage to stick by each other through thick and thin, to not forsake each other for another. It isn't for their benefit. It is for their children's benefit that this is so. Marriage is about children. It is society's insurance that children [future adult members] receive the best possible upbringing as a rule.

A society has a deeply vested interest in preserving this situation. Gays don't fit the bill. It is physically impossible. Wherease at least with barren hetero couples their pledge to each other doesn't conflict legally with the acme marital situation. The rule: one man and one woman. Gays have not qualified.....especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs.

Marriage is an incentive with perks. It's a reward for certain behaviors. Those behaviors are to be a man and a woman, coming together in love, in a bonded pair to reproduce and produce children who rely on their relationship to grow into fully fledged, well rounded and productive citizens. No marriage is perfect but the icon is preserved to encourage people to strive for that perfection, that gold ring, so that in so striving a child's chances of health and wellbeing are enhanced. Bestowing "marriage" upon two people of the same gender who regard sex as assisted masturbation and who revere and defend a child sex predator are not qualifying for Utah's standards for its children.

I know what the issue that is being made out here. But it simply isn't an issue.

You talk about the bond of two parents. Not an issue. The kids you're talking about aren't the kids who have two loving parents. They're the kids who need adopting, either the kids whose parents aren't together, or the kids who parents are abusive, or whatever the situation may be, it's not NORMAL in the sense you're making out.

You want these kids to go to a "normal" home, but are there enough? No is the simple answer in many cases.

You want to preserve this situation as if gay people not marrying other gay people will simply go "oh, well I'll just be straight then, and marry". Sorry, that doesn't exist. Gay people are gay whether you like it or not.

Allowing them to marry doesn't stop men and women marrying together, and it certainly doesn't stop them divorcing at a great rate like they do right now, more than one divorce for every two marriages in the US suggests they aren't doing a very good job of giving incentives for people to provide this secure home.

Surely they should be trying to give incentives for people to be knowledgeable when they go into relationships and want to have kids. Do they do this? Marriage isn't the incentive it used to be, people can get easy divorces.

"especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs."

This is a statement that doesn't make sense to me. As if all gay people support this guy. Do you think gay people just want to rape everyone? Come off it. Let's stick to the reality here.

Some gay people have adopted and abused children. Some straight people have adopted and abused children.
You want to stop gay people from adopting because some have abused, but you don't want to stop straight adults from doing so. Right!

Marriage is a reward for certain behaviours? Like what? Cheating on their wife? Beating their wife? What exactly?

You don't make loving couples through marriage. Seriously, you don't. Married couples who stay together for life and take care of their children don't do so because of marriage. They do so because this is what they want from life.

With the rate of divorce so high, many don't do this with marriage, and wouldn't do so without marriage.

You're looking in the wrong place if you want to help kids on this issue.

Especially with the right in the US making a massive hash of dealing with poverty.