Oklahoma/Utah 10th Circuit May Lean To State Choice On Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Youre completely incorrect in your thinking. No one is being discriminated against.

I guess gay people aren't actually people.

I guess polygamists, incest pairs and 13 year olds aren't people either. Don't feel singled out. Reality just is in some cases. Blind people can't drive because you have to see to drive. Gay people in all but 3 states [by the Windsor definition] cannot marry because they aren't a grown man and a grown woman who aren't related closely by blood.

I can't use the opposite gender bathroom or showers. Neither can you. I'm too old to be in the military. Some are too young to be senators or president. Boys can't play on girls softball teams. Cats shouldn't go near a dog kennel. You can't put a shooting range next to an old folks home or a church.

There are barriers to everyone in life. EVERYONE. And the mature accept them. Gay isn't race, it isn't country of origin, it isn't gender and it isn't officially a religion; though it is a cult. So it has to pitch its case state by state in order to gain access to marriage, if it ever does. Just like 13 year olds, polygamists, triads of lesbians, brothers/sisters etc. If the state says "no" to these conditions qualifying, that's it.

 

[Silhouette]

I know that you hope that your wish will be upheld (and it may be in the 10th), but, I believe, that Sotomayor has built a 6-3 majority for her at the very least and maybe 7-2.

No matter who prevails at the 10th, it will be appealed. You know that. Gays being stopped in their agenda??? Hardly. And Utah isn't going to lay down for gay marriage. So it will be heard at the Top.

"Sotomayor has built a 6-3 majority"?? Since when does a Junior Justice own the whole Court? After the affirmative action thing, you're dead sure you have Kennedy on board? Of course they could overturn nearly all the language they used to justify granting Windsor her win last Summer [the logic that if her state defined marriage to include gays, the fed had to abide by state rule and that state definition came about as a result of a broad consensus of the governed]. But I doubt that within just a year or so that the Court will overturn itself.

But you can keep on crossing your fingers. We'll see what happens...

BTW, hey Jake, what do you think about that lesbian trio marrying in Massachusetts?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You better study Court history and the making of majorities.

Sotomayor and most of the rest do not interpret Windsor as you do, which you well know.

Sil, I could care less about the lesbians anymore than I do about you and your bed companions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Youre completely incorrect in your thinking. No one is being discriminated against.

I guess gay people aren't actually people.

I guess polygamists, incest pairs and 13 year olds aren't people either. Don't feel singled out. Reality just is in some cases. Blind people can't drive because you have to see to drive. Gay people in all but 3 states [by the Windsor definition] cannot marry because they aren't a grown man and a grown woman who aren't related closely by blood.

I can't use the opposite gender bathroom or showers. Neither can you. I'm too old to be in the military. Some are too young to be senators or president. Boys can't play on girls softball teams. Cats shouldn't go near a dog kennel. You can't put a shooting range next to an old folks home or a church.

There are barriers to everyone in life. EVERYONE. And the mature accept them. Gay isn't race, it isn't country of origin, it isn't gender and it isn't officially a religion; though it is a cult. So it has to pitch its case state by state in order to gain access to marriage, if it ever does. Just like 13 year olds, polygamists, triads of lesbians, brothers/sisters etc. If the state says "no" to these conditions qualifying, that's it.

This is mere desperate demagoguery.

The issue before the courts has nothing to do whatsoever with ‘polygamy’ or any other manifestation of human relationships not sanctioned by marriage.

The issue concerns only marriage law and the fact that measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, law same-sex couples are eligible to participate in, are un-Constitutional.

In addition, recognizing the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law will have no adverse effect on society in general, where to ‘argue’ otherwise fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Last, gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections, where whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of choice or nature is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

That you and others on the right hate gay Americans is also legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, where your efforts to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties is motivated solely by animus toward gay Americans, to only make them different from everyone else, in violation of their right to equal protection of the law.

 

[Silhouette]

You better study Court history and the making of majorities.

Sotomayor and most of the rest do not interpret Windsor as you do, which you well know.

Sil, I could care less about the lesbians anymore than I do about you and your bed companions.

What is there to interpret about Windsor's core element being that leaving up to the states' consensus' the matter of gay marriage? And the fed having no business enforcing it or denying it either way?

You'd have to be a pretzel-logic master to read Windsor and the dozens of times it iterated and reiterated that states are the ones who choose by a broad public discussion in order to read it any other way. Remember, they have to back up their decisions with logic and citations. A flunkie lawyer could tear them apart if they try to backpeddle "states get to decide". They said it was their constitutional right in the way "the Framers of the Constitution intended"... since the start of the country.

The only "maybe" they left open was Loving. And if tested on Loving, the LGBT deviant sexual behavior club is quite incomplete. The Court will have to anticipate and discuss "other deviant sexual or other "consenting adult" relationships who cannot be arbitrarily denied if they allow LGBT behaviors to act "as race"...

It's that last part: establishing a precedent for any behaviors, compulsive or not, to be seen as race that is the biggest hurdle the LGBT cult has to face. Can you imagine how lawyers will run with that on other behaviors? Think of crimes. "Your honor, my client was "born that way"... Jesus H. Christ. I can see the entire legal system unravelling right before my eyes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's that last part: establishing a precedent for any behaviors, compulsive or not, to be seen as race that is the biggest hurdle the LGBT cult has to face. Can you imagine how lawyers will run with that on other behaviors? Think of crimes. "Your honor, my client was "born that way"... Jesus H. Christ. I can see the entire legal system unravelling right before my eyes.

Born that way in this case is why you have lost this fight. It's pretty obvious that most of them were born that way, just as we were born straight. Biology, and the maturing of the Americans on this issue, means all can ever do is lose. Your dog no longer fights, he just barks and pulls at his chain while the gay pride and equality parade passes right by him on down the street.

Born that way can be used in court BTW. It's done all the time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, there is nothing to interpret concerning Windsor: you are in the very small minority.

The LBGT "cult" is a delusion only in your mind and a few others.

If you think the court system will unravel if marriage equality is sustained, then you have no business talking about the case. You know nothing, Sil Snow.

 

[Silhouette]

Born that way in this case is why you have lost this fight. It's pretty obvious that most of them were born that way, just as we were born straight. Biology, and the maturing of the Americans on this issue, means all can ever do is lose. Your dog no longer fights, he just barks and pulls at his chain while the gay pride and equality parade passes right by him on down the street.

Born that way can be used in court BTW. It's done all the time.

I'll have to send Anne Heche a telegram then. She will be surprised to learn that she still is a lesbian..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Born that way in this case is why you have lost this fight. It's pretty obvious that most of them were born that way, just as we were born straight. Biology, and the maturing of the Americans on this issue, means all can ever do is lose. Your dog no longer fights, he just barks and pulls at his chain while the gay pride and equality parade passes right by him on down the street.

Born that way can be used in court BTW. It's done all the time.

I'll have to send Anne Heche a telegram then. She will be surprised to learn that she still is a lesbian..

She's bisexual, obviously. That's hardly uncommon. Most people are to some extent even if they don't act upon it.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, there is nothing to interpret concerning Windsor: you are in the very small minority.

The LBGT "cult" is a delusion only in your mind and a few others.

If you think the court system will unravel if marriage equality is sustained, then you have no business talking about the case. You know nothing, Sil Snow.

Marriage equality for who exactly? What is "LGBT" and why is it limited only to these ways of deviant behaviors? What about polygamy? Is "two" a sacred word of marriage that must be preserved while all other traditional US parameters to the definition are fair game to dissolve? Why? Why the arrangement of adults and not the number?

And so on.

Good luck! You think this Court is going to saddle Utah with polygamy as a matter of law. My, you are optimistic

 

[Silhouette]

She's bisexual, obviously. That's hardly uncommon. Most people are to some extent even if they don't act upon it.

When we took biology we learned about pheremones, and the two genders reproducing.

In psychology, we learned about classical conditioning and compulsive behaviors.

Science is on the side of LGBT being learned dysfunctions outside the designs of biology. Males are born seeking a hole, a vagina. So some of them imprinted themselves with the sights, smells etc. of using another man's anus as an artificial vagina. I don't think we should put the stamp of "normal" on that learned behavior just yet.

Each state needs to decide for itself if it wants to do that. HIV is a huge problem..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

She's bisexual, obviously. That's hardly uncommon. Most people are to some extent even if they don't act upon it.

When we took biology we learned about pheremones, and the two genders reproducing.

In psychology, we learned about classical conditioning and compulsive behaviors.

Science is on the side of LGBT being learned dysfunctions outside the designs of biology. Males are born seeking a hole, a vagina. So some of them imprinted themselves with the sights, smells etc. of using another man's anus as an artificial vagina. I don't think we should put the stamp of "normal" on that learned behavior just yet.

Each state needs to decide for itself if it wants to do that. HIV is a huge problem..

Your understanding of both biology and psychology are too weak for me to spend any time on. What you believe to be true isn't. Nuff said.

 

[Silhouette]

She's bisexual, obviously. That's hardly uncommon. Most people are to some extent even if they don't act upon it.

When we took biology we learned about pheremones, and the two genders reproducing.

In psychology, we learned about classical conditioning and compulsive behaviors.

Science is on the side of LGBT being learned dysfunctions outside the designs of biology. Males are born seeking a hole, a vagina. So some of them imprinted themselves with the sights, smells etc. of using another man's anus as an artificial vagina. I don't think we should put the stamp of "normal" on that learned behavior just yet.

Each state needs to decide for itself if it wants to do that. HIV is a huge problem..

Your understanding of both biology and psychology are too weak for me to spend any time on. What you believe to be true isn't. Nuff said.

No, elaborate. Elaborate or you're hiding that you're afraid what I said has merit. What a hack you are..and a coward.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When we took biology we learned about pheremones, and the two genders reproducing.

In psychology, we learned about classical conditioning and compulsive behaviors.

Science is on the side of LGBT being learned dysfunctions outside the designs of biology. Males are born seeking a hole, a vagina. So some of them imprinted themselves with the sights, smells etc. of using another man's anus as an artificial vagina. I don't think we should put the stamp of "normal" on that learned behavior just yet.

Each state needs to decide for itself if it wants to do that. HIV is a huge problem..

Your understanding of both biology and psychology are too weak for me to spend any time on. What you believe to be true isn't. Nuff said.

No, elaborate. Elaborate or you're hiding that you're afraid what I said has merit. What a hack you are..and a coward.

What you said has no merit. It's idiotic actually, just words without understanding. That's why it's not worth my time bothering with.

 

[Silhouette]

Your understanding of both biology and psychology are too weak for me to spend any time on. What you believe to be true isn't. Nuff said.

No, elaborate. Elaborate or you're hiding that you're afraid what I said has merit. What a hack you are..and a coward.

What you said has no merit. It's idiotic actually, just words without understanding. That's why it's not worth my time bothering with.

What you just said is transparent. You have no rebuttal. How could you? It's your religion vs science.. Science has the weight. Your belief system that says "we were born that way" has no weight but the words beneath it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, elaborate. Elaborate or you're hiding that you're afraid what I said has merit. What a hack you are..and a coward.

What you said has no merit. It's idiotic actually, just words without understanding. That's why it's not worth my time bothering with.

What you just said is transparent. You have no rebuttal. How could you? It's your religion vs science.. Science has the weight. Your belief system that says "we were born that way" has no weight but the words beneath it.

Science is what you are unable to understand, obviously.

 

[Silhouette]

Science is what you are unable to understand, obviously.

That's not a rebuttal. It's an ad hominem and a diversion. Not much more sophisitcated than a 3rd grader. When you're ready to back your position with facts, let me know. Otherwise we default to "Learned that way" instead of "born that way". The difference has huge legal ramifcations..

Meanwhile, what do you think of the title of this thread? Do you think the 10th is leaning towards letting states decide? And where will it go from there? If you can muster the courage to answer those questions instead of derail the topic when you feel threatened.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Science is what you are unable to understand, obviously.

That's not a rebuttal. It's an ad hominem and a diversion. Not much more sophisitcated than a 3rd grader. When you're ready to back your position with facts, let me know. Otherwise we default to "Learned that way" instead of "born that way". The difference has huge legal ramifcations..

Meanwhile, what do you think of the title of this thread? Do you think the 10th is leaning towards letting states decide? And where will it go from there? If you can muster the courage to answer those questions instead of derail the topic when you feel threatened.

The third-grader is the one calling other posters cowards, who can't spell. This is the Internet not the playground, Your taunts won't work on adults, although there are few here that's for sure.

And I spent both time and money to learn how humans are created and what makes them tick, and I'm not interested in spoon-feeding you what you should have learned by now.

And the Tenth will not rule your way. The logic is simple, there's no compelling reason for such laws and it's not a decision the people should have voted on in the first place, which makes these laws null and void.

 

[Silhouette]

The third-grader is the one calling other posters cowards, who can't spell. This is the Internet not the playground, Your taunts won't work on adults, although there are few here that's for sure.

And I spent both time and money to learn how humans are created and what makes them tick, and I'm not interested in spoon-feeding you what you should have learned by now.

And the Tenth will not rule your way. The logic is simple, there's no compelling reason for such laws and it's not a decision the people should have voted on in the first place, which makes these laws null and void.

More ad hominems. Prove that gays are born that way. I want substance. Meanwhile we will default to what science points to: that using the anus as an artificial vagina is a learned behavior..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The third-grader is the one calling other posters cowards, who can't spell. This is the Internet not the playground, Your taunts won't work on adults, although there are few here that's for sure.

And I spent both time and money to learn how humans are created and what makes them tick, and I'm not interested in spoon-feeding you what you should have learned by now.

And the Tenth will not rule your way. The logic is simple, there's no compelling reason for such laws and it's not a decision the people should have voted on in the first place, which makes these laws null and void.

More ad hominems. Prove that gays are born that way. I want substance. Meanwhile we will default to what science points to: that using the anus as an artificial vagina is a learned behavior..

I am unconcerned with what you want, and when I'm fucking my wife's mouth or ass it's not an artificial vagina, I know exactly which hole I want to be in and why.

Your belief is both unscientific and untrue, and sounds like typical right-crap from someone who knows if homosexuality is as nature as science says it is, they're screwed and will have to change their mentality.