Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

[Silhouette]

How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.

Yes, they can, when one considers marriage is an institution with regards to all children born or unborn as yet. American children are implicit partners as a whole to the marriage contract.

No, they can't and we've never done so in this nation. It's why you've never heard anyone but you argue that children are an implicit partner in a marriage contract. People that don't exist can't be a party to a contract.

But that's not why marriage was invented since time immemorial to 2015. It was invented anticipating the arrival of children and so, the unborn or as-yet unconceived DO have rights in that scenario where the states incentivizing marriage is concerned. If you think you're going to convince the 85% who feel motherless/fatherless marriages are not right where children are concerned, you have your work cut out for you.

Times have changed, but not that much as it turns out: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[mdk]

How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.

Yes, they can, when one considers marriage is an institution with regards to all children born or unborn as yet. American children are implicit partners as a whole to the marriage contract.

No, they can't and we've never done so in this nation. It's why you've never heard anyone but you argue that children are an implicit partner in a marriage contract. People that don't exist can't be a party to a contract.

But that's not why marriage was invented since time immemorial to 2015. It was invented anticipating the arrival of children and so, the unborn or as-yet unconceived DO have rights in that scenario where the states incentivizing marriage is concerned. If you think you're going to convince the 85% who feel motherless/fatherless marriages are not right where children are concerned, you have your work cut out for you.

Times have changed, but not that much as it turns out: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you referring to your own posting style?

 

[Silhouette]

I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?

Not sure exactly. I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female"). I don't think it should be legal to say "I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian". If you're open to the public, you serve protected people. But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally. I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity". Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply. We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors. Equality. And you know I can cite precedent on equality.

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class. Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.

So, you want special privileges based on your religion.

No, I want the courts to wake up and define how deviant behavior practitioners can gain a special class status while they are somehow forgetting that deviant behavior practitioners are what the voters keep in check with the penal and civil code systems. ie: the 14th Amendment's core theory is "if you allow one, you allow all". Equality. So why do just deviant sex practitioners get a special pass while other deviant behaviors don't have special protections? You've got it exactly backwards.

 

[Syriusly]

How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.

Yes, they can, when one considers marriage is an institution with regards to all children born or unborn as yet. American children are implicit partners as a whole to the marriage contract.

No, they can't and we've never done so in this nation. It's why you've never heard anyone but you argue that children are an implicit partner in a marriage contract. People that don't exist can't be a party to a contract.

But that's not why marriage was invented since time immemorial to 2015. It was invented

Merely repeating over and over- what the courts have found to be false- doesn't magically make it true now.

You are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?

Not sure exactly. I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender .

And again- you have no clue what the law is or even what the Public Accommodation rules are.

There is no constitutional protection for race, religion, country of origin, gender or sexual orientation for public accommodations.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act- and all other public accommodation laws are legislation- which protect the rights of the discriminated classes named- some are based on behavior- like religion- some are based upon race- some are based upon sexual orientation.

Then when it comes to marriage- we all have marriage rights- and the States cannot arbitrarily deny them- which is why Obergefell is merely the latest of the Supreme Court decisions overturning unconstitutional marriage laws.

 

[Syriusly]

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.

People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress has no Power, to dictate morals of Religion.

 

[Silhouette]

Congress has no Power, to dictate morals of Religion.

The Judicial has no Power to dictate (a)morals of the LGBTQ etc. cult either.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity.l

 

[Silhouette]

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.

People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.

Marriage is a public recognition of two people to cohabitate with the best benefit to children. In gay marriage boys are stripped legally of a father for life 50% of the time and girls are stripped legally of a mother for life 50% of the time. In 100% of so-called "gay marriage", children are stripped of one or the other "legally" for life. Which is a violation of their millennial-old contractual enjoyment of marriage for their sake.

 

[Lysistrata]

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.

People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.

Marriage is a public recognition of two people to cohabitate with the best benefit to children. In gay marriage boys are stripped legally of a father for life 50% of the time and girls are stripped legally of a mother for life 50% of the time. In 100% of so-called "gay marriage", children are stripped of one or the other "legally" for life. Which is a violation of their millennial-old contractual enjoyment of marriage for their sake.

What children?

 

[Silhouette]

What children?

The children every state anticipates will statistically arrive to a marriage; whether or not they do. They have to approve of a contract to "children" generally as to marriage. Gay marriage takes either the father or mother away from those anticipated children for life as a matter of contractual law; which is forbidden to do.

The Infancy Doctrine says no contract shared or implied to be shared by children may have terms detrimental to them. That's "what children".

 

[mdk]

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.

People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.

Marriage is a public recognition of two people to cohabitate with the best benefit to children. In gay marriage boys are stripped legally of a father for life 50% of the time and girls are stripped legally of a mother for life 50% of the time. In 100% of so-called "gay marriage", children are stripped of one or the other "legally" for life. Which is a violation of their millennial-old contractual enjoyment of marriage for their sake.

Merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity!

 

[Lysistrata]

What children?

The children every state anticipates will statistically arrive to a marriage; whether or not they do. They have to approve of a contract to "children" generally as to marriage. Gay marriage takes either the father or mother away from those anticipated children for life as a matter of contractual law; which is forbidden to do.

The Infancy Doctrine says no contract shared or implied to be shared by children may have terms detrimental to them. That's "what children".

So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.

 

[Silhouette]

So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.

Nice strawman. We agree that gays can never be natural parents. I'm talking about all children, natural, adopted etc. need both mother and father from the marriage contract. Not the guaranteed absence of one or the other for life from the marriage contract...

 

[bodecea]

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.

People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.

Marriage is a public recognition of two people to cohabitate with the best benefit to children. In gay marriage boys are stripped legally of a father for life 50% of the time and girls are stripped legally of a mother for life 50% of the time. In 100% of so-called "gay marriage", children are stripped of one or the other "legally" for life. Which is a violation of their millennial-old contractual enjoyment of marriage for their sake.

Thank you for proving that the 14th Amendment applies.

 

[mdk]

Any marriage that doesn't produce children should be made null and void. After all, marriage isn't really about the two people getting married, it's all about the children.

 

[Lysistrata]

So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.

Nice strawman. We agree that gays can never be natural parents. I'm talking about all children, natural, adopted etc. need both mother and father from the marriage contract. Not the guaranteed absence of one or the other for life from the marriage contract...

You are still imagining children. Married people often do not produce children between them. If there are children present in their families, this phenomenon is through another means than through biological procreation. If a married couple does not produce biological children, what harm is done, anyway? Then the married couple would just be one man and one woman down the block, or two men, or two women living down the block. I fail to see why this is so earth-shattering.

 

[Silhouette]

Imagining children?