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

[Syriusly]

HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!

Period.

Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?

The kinds of parents that scare Dexter....

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly's posts = a diversion to this vv It's one of those pesky empirical studies that reflects poorly on the "born this way" premise from which all their court victories have been won thusfar...

Ah Silly the liar.

None of the cases rest on whether gays are born gay or not. You are just lying.

Just like you lie about the Infancy Doctrine- and "Necessaires'

 

[LaDexter]

HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!

Period.

Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?

Definitely.

Lesbians raise boys to be "docilized" and subservient to women
Homos raise boys to tie them up and poke them up the rear - see JESSE DIRKHISING

REMEMBERING JESSE: The Deviant Homosexual Rape-Murder of Young Jesse Dirkhising » Americans for Truth

Fifteen years ago today, a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.

Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover, Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother, Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.

 

[LaDexter]

WHY are HOMOS so OBSESSED with TOUCHING young kids???

 

[Skylar]

HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!

Period.

Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?

Definitely.

Lesbians raise boys to be "docilized" and subservient to women
Homos raise boys to tie them up and poke them up the rear - see JESSE DIRKHISING

REMEMBERING JESSE: The Deviant Homosexual Rape-Murder of Young Jesse Dirkhising » Americans for Truth

Fifteen years ago today, a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.

Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover, Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother, Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.

And if gays and lesbians won't give up their own children......what? We kill them?

 

[LaDexter]

CONFISCATE THOSE KIDS to save them from the horrible fate they currently endure...

 

[Syriusly]

HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!

Period.

Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?

Definitely.

Lesbians raise boys to be "docilized" and subservient to women
Homos raise boys to tie them up and poke them up the rear - see JESSE DIRKHISING

REMEMBERING JESSE: The Deviant Homosexual Rape-Murder of Young Jesse Dirkhising » Americans for Truth

Fifteen years ago today, a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.

Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover, Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother, Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.

The difference between yourself and myself- is that I find the rape and murder of all children horrible- you only find it horrible when you can blame it on gay men.

I could post stories of Step fathers raping and sodomizing their own daughters- of straight couples sexually abusing their children- and then murdering them- but what would that show?

There are horrible people in the world- people who don't deserve to be parents- people who shouldn't be near kids. Most of the ones who sexually harm kids are men- most of their victims are girls- most often the attackers are either family members, or close family friends.

You use this issue to attack gay men. Because you don't give a damn about kids- you just want to harm gay men.

 

[Syriusly]

WHY are HOMOS so OBSESSED with TOUCHING young kids???

Why are parents so obsessed with touching their young kids?

 

[Skylar]

CONFISCATE THOSE KIDS to save them from the horrible fate they currently endure...

And what is that 'horrible fate'? A loving two parent household?

And if same sex parents refuse to give up their own children......what do you want to do to those parents?

 

[Skylar]

You have no concern for Jesse Dirkhising.

You were likely there watching it....

And now you've crossed into batshit tin foil territory.

 

[Syriusly]

You have no concern for Jesse Dirkhising.

You were likely there watching it....

And now you've crossed into batshit tin foil territory.

No- he crossed into asshole territory- accusing me of participating in a murder.

 

[Silhouette]

Well. You got your straw man at least.

Wonder what the staff on the USSC will look like by 2019?

 

[Skylar]

Well. You got your straw man at least.

Wonder what the staff on the USSC will look like by 2019?

Laughing...now the infancy doctrine is a 'strawman'?

If so, why did you bring it up repeatedly?

 

[Syriusly]

Well. You got your straw man at least.

Wonder what the staff on the USSC will look like by 2019?

Silhouette

Talking to herself.

Again.

 

[JoeB131]

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Sil raises it to an artform. It's like his/her/whatever entire sense of reality is based on this being rolled back after thousands of people have already gotten married.

Here's what happened Sil. Gays go married. God did not cause the Apocolypse to happen. Life just kind of went on and we were all better off for it.

 

[Silhouette]

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Sil raises it to an artform. It's like his/her/whatever entire sense of reality is based on this being rolled back after thousands of people have already gotten married.

Here's what happened Sil. Gays go married. God did not cause the Apocolypse to happen. Life just kind of went on and we were all better off for it.

They got "married" creating a contract that banishes children (that the court said were intrinsic to marriage) for life from either a mother or father, And children collective had no representation at that Hearing. The People who were rendered as unimportant as mothers or fathers in marriage had no representation on that point. Nor were any studies cited nor discussion had of any ramifications of such a drastic and fundamental change in the benefits children gained from marriage since time immemorial.

So, there's that.

 

[Syriusly]

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Sil raises it to an artform. It's like his/her/whatever entire sense of reality is based on this being rolled back after thousands of people have already gotten married.

Here's what happened Sil. Gays go married. God did not cause the Apocolypse to happen. Life just kind of went on and we were all better off for it.

They got "married" creating a contract t.

They got married- two people- creating a contract between themselves and no one else.

 

[Silhouette]

That's not what the the court said in Obergefell in its third tier of rationale addressing children specifically. They said that children & child rearing are "part of the whole" of the concept of marriage.

Know what else is part of the whole? The contract. Where was the discussion or citation.. indeed any representation at all of children's collective interest in marriage benefits? Mothers/fathers were rendered irrelevant by Obergefell without a single peep of citation to the impact of a contract that banishes them from either for life.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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...

yeah I love the gay gene premise when these idiots defend trannies.......hey guess what you're born with a dick, it makes you a guy..........I don't even need to go into DNA strands to see it....it's pretty obvious.

 

[Skylar]

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Sil raises it to an artform. It's like his/her/whatever entire sense of reality is based on this being rolled back after thousands of people have already gotten married.

Here's what happened Sil. Gays go married. God did not cause the Apocolypse to happen. Life just kind of went on and we were all better off for it.

They got "married" creating a contract that banishes children (that the court said were intrinsic to marriage) for life from either a mother or father,

Same sex parenting and sex sex marriage are not the same thing. Same sex parenting happens regardless of same sex marriage. Same sex marriage merely prevents the harm and humiliation children of same sex marriage face when stripped of the stability and financial benefits that marriage can bring.

Again, you ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court...

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

Obergefell v. Hodges

.....and replace the above findings with your imagination. Your imagination isn't a legal argument and has zero relevance on any law or the outcome of any case.

And children collective had no representation at that Hearing.

No such requirement exists. You literally made that up. No 'child collective' has ever been represented in any Supreme Court hearing, ever.

Your insistence that the hearing was 'illegal' because they didn't implement a non-existent 'requirement' that you imagined has no relevance.

The People who were rendered as unimportant as mothers or fathers in marriage had no representation on that point.

No child is the party to the marriage of their parents. You imagine otherwise. Your imagination isn't a legal argument.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal ramblings have never been able to accurately predict the outcome of a case? Its because you ignore the law.