New GOP Edge: Did 5 Dem/Indp Justices Ratify Child-Deprivation Using Fake "Gay Gene" Premise?

[Silhouette]

But who is the vital father & vital mother with two gays or lesbians?

 

[MaryL]

Gays don't "just have kids". They steal evey crumb of normality they can.

Again, they steal nothing. They adopt or they have their own children. Nothing is being taken from you or anyone else.

They buy lawyers to change laws, they buy as much propaganda they can. And they think we don't notice? Some of you might not. And some of you call that foolishness "Enlightenment'. Yeah, right.

Laughing.....what is being taken from you, Mary? A gay couple get married and adopts a kid and what? What is do you lose? What is the cost to you?

Raising a kid is pretty normal stuff.

But gays will never have children biologically , you DO understand biology? They (and you) like to sweep that under the rug. I am not going to ignore that simple fact, məšugga' person.

They have have a surrogate carry their child or adopt. If they're a lesbian couple one can have the child. Surrogacy and adoption are perfectly normal.

There's nothing to 'sweep under the table'. There's no 'theft'. There's nothing taken from you, Mary. They get married and raise their families.....and you lose nothing.

You almost make sound reasonable, שִׁמְשׁוֹן, What did we gain by giving perverts same sex rights and let them adopt children, and why is that a good thing?

Same sex couples were already parents....by the 10s of thousands. Bans on same sex marriage hurt and humiliated their children for no benefit.

Children get a two parent home. And it costs you...nothing. It takes nothing from you.

Gays don't make children, they make laws and force acceptance, Nazis did the same thing. Force their ideology on the rest of us, but not as subtle. Homosexuals aren't some newly discovered undercover class. um, no. They have always been here, and broken sexuality isn't new. They stick a new name on it, call it something else. Homosexuality isn't humanity's future. It's a digression and a sick diversion. lets get past that.

 

[Slyhunter]

If there is a gay gene, we can detect it. We can abort it. We can rub it out so that it no longer exists in man kind. Abort all fetuses with the gay gene.

Problem solved.

 

[Slyhunter]

Also, abort those with any genetic disorder, including but not excluding Down Syndrome.

 

[Silhouette]

Wanna take your ^^ strawman somewhere else?

There is no gay gene. The CDC found in a survey of 3,000 gay men that most had been molested as boys. In fact the CDC called it "an epidemic".

 

[Skylar]

Lots of people who adopt will never have have children biologically. We know a couple who have who adopted two kids- because they could not have children biologically.

What did they do though- just like a gay couple who chooses to adopt- they adopted two kids abandoned by their biological parents.

That is what adoptive parents do- and I applaud anyone with the balls to adopt those kids that others have abandoned.

Exactly.

 

[Syriusly]

Wanna take your ^^ strawman somewhere else?

There is no gay gene. The CDC found in a survey of 3,000 gay men that most had been molested as boys. In fact the CDC called it "an epidemic".

Forget how to use the reply button again?

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Also, abort those with any genetic disorder, including but not excluding Down Syndrome.

Always fascinating to hear from the Trump supporters.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, they steal nothing. They adopt or they have their own children. Nothing is being taken from you or anyone else.


Laughing.....what is being taken from you, Mary? A gay couple get married and adopts a kid and what? What is do you lose? What is the cost to you?

Raising a kid is pretty normal stuff.

But gays will never have children biologically , you DO understand biology? They (and you) like to sweep that under the rug. I am not going to ignore that simple fact, məšugga' person.

They have have a surrogate carry their child or adopt. If they're a lesbian couple one can have the child. Surrogacy and adoption are perfectly normal.

There's nothing to 'sweep under the table'. There's no 'theft'. There's nothing taken from you, Mary. They get married and raise their families.....and you lose nothing.

You almost make sound reasonable, שִׁמְשׁוֹן, What did we gain by giving perverts same sex rights and let them adopt children, and why is that a good thing?

Same sex couples were already parents....by the 10s of thousands. Bans on same sex marriage hurt and humiliated their children for no benefit.

Children get a two parent home. And it costs you...nothing. It takes nothing from you.

Gays don't make children, they make laws and force acceptance, Nazis did the same thing. .

Now you are calling American Christians 'Nazi's?

For 200 years American Christians passed laws to try to force Americans to live by their morality- not just laws against homosexuals, but laws against Americans using contraception- or even reading about contraception. Laws censoring what Americans could read- even medical books for young married couples that discussed reproduction. And of course laws dictating what kind of sex Americans were not allowed to have- even between married consenting adults.

The only thing that has stopped you Christian 'Nazis' (to use your term)- has been the Supreme Court- knocking down your fascist laws.

 

[Syriusly]

But who is the vital father & vital mother with two gays or lesbians?

Why do two gays need a vital father or a vital mother? Why do two lesbians?

 

[Silhouette]

Wanna take your ^^ strawman somewhere else?

There is no gay gene. The CDC found in a survey of 3,000 gay men that most had been molested as boys. In fact the CDC called it "an epidemic".

Forget how to use the reply button again?

LOL

Well here's the quote:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News]-- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing the issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of pervention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

 

[Skylar]

Wanna take your ^^ strawman somewhere else?

There is no gay gene. The CDC found in a survey of 3,000 gay men that most had been molested as boys. In fact the CDC called it "an epidemic".

Forget how to use the reply button again?

LOL

Then explain how you assimilate this quote from the Supreme Court in your pseudo-legal babble?

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges

Keep running, Sil. Its not like the Obergfell ruling is going to change just because you ignore it.

 

[Silhouette]

It'll change if reversed though. And man is there a truckload of ways to get that done.

 

[Skylar]

It'll change if reversed though. And man is there a truckload of ways to get that done.

Laughing....so now you're citing imaginary cases?

Again, Sil...we have what the Courts have actually said. Not what you imagine they will. And they've destroyed your entire argument, finding that the bans you demand hurt and humiliate children.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Well I guess the Infancy Doctrine is wrong according to you. I guess children don't have a right to representation as a necessity in civil cases of extraordinary circumstance...such as assigning a contract that can banish them away from either a mother or father for life. I guess the case law supporting that necessity is "bogus" right?

 

[jillian]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:

Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

your op title isn't even English.

go seek help.

 

[Silhouette]

your op title isn't even English.

go seek help.

Poor little baby...has nothing substantive to say and only ad hominem as a defense against page 1 ...

 

[jillian]

your op title isn't even English.

go seek help.

Poor little baby...has nothing substantive to say and only ad hominem as a defense against page 1 ...

there is nothing substantive to say to you that hasn't been said a thousand times.
you should stop using this board for your unhealthy, deranged obsession.

 

[Syriusly]

Wanna take your ^^ strawman somewhere else?

There is no gay gene. The CDC found in a survey of 3,000 gay men that most had been molested as boys. In fact the CDC called it "an epidemic".

Forget how to use the reply button again?

LOL

Well here's the quote:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News]-- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing the issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of pervention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

You found out how to use the reply button!

Why would you want to deny gay men who have been abused as children- happy marriages?

Obergefell V. Hodges

 

[Syriusly]

Well I guess the Infancy Doctrine is wrong according to you.

As always- I should just put it in my signature- the Infancy Doctrine is a legal concept.

You just lie about what the Infancy Doctrine says.

The Supreme Court doesn't though.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges