Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[Inevitable]

The power Gays have now is equivocal to what the tobacco industry had years ago, with their lawyers and all that, twisting minds to fit their little agenda. The AMA even sold tobacco use as healthy, back then...Well, Homosexuality is obviously just another sexual dysfunction, a mental issue, not a social class. We all have the same rights in America. No less, no more.

Imaginary agendas? Do we also have a dragon, and know where Atlantis is?

It it is a mental issue for you, I hope you get it sorted out, but it isn't for most of us.

Aside from the imaginary agenda with dragons and Atlantis, I don't think we are trying to be a social class, and more rights for everybody would mean we still have the same rights, just more of them.

So I guess saying that they are a tiny minority has no place in the argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heterosexuals kill the unborn in the scores of millions.

Don't tell me that hetero fascism is about the children.

 

[mdk]

The power Gays have now is equivocal to what the tobacco industry had years ago, with their lawyers and all that, twisting minds to fit their little agenda. The AMA even sold tobacco use as healthy, back then...Well, Homosexuality is obviously just another sexual dysfunction, a mental issue, not a social class. We all have the same rights in America. No less, no more.

Imaginary agendas? Do we also have a dragon, and know where Atlantis is?

It it is a mental issue for you, I hope you get it sorted out, but it isn't for most of us.

Aside from the imaginary agenda with dragons and Atlantis, I don't think we are trying to be a social class, and more rights for everybody would mean we still have the same rights, just more of them.

So I guess saying that they are a tiny minority has no place in the argument.

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your nonsense arguments, Sil, have been rejected by 50 court rulings.

That will not change.

What will change eventually, as with Orly T., these court challenges will eventually be identified as "frivolous" and fined.

Constitutional republicanism is only threatened by the lilies of Sil.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not democracy.

 

[mdk]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

There isn't any need to say goodbye to democracy consider we are not one. I know you we wish the nation would regress back to the times where state could belittle and diminish the rights of those they deem unworthy but those days are setting. It seems marriage equality is here to stay despite all your efforts to slander and malign gays. I am sure you'll continue to predict that the sky will fall while the rest of us chuckle as your irrational views on gays get discarded on the trash heap of history.

 

[Silhouette]

There isn't any need to say goodbye to democracy consider we are not one. I know you we wish the nation would regress back to the times where state could belittle and diminish the rights of those they deem unworthy but those days are setting. It seems marriage equality is here to stay despite all your efforts to slander and malign gays. I am sure you'll continue to predict that the sky will fall while the rest of us chuckle as your irrational views on gays get discarded on the trash heap of history.

Gays don't have special rights. They don't have the right to tell the majority "we are going to dissolve the mother/father model in marriage to children's collective detriment". They just don't have that right. The states have the right to allow that or not. But the fed cannot tell the state, "you have to let this deviant sex cult gut the definition of the mechanics of mother/father in marriage".

And BTW, which of the deviant sex behaviors aren't allowed to marry? Polygamy allowed right now to marry? No? Why not? Because they're repugnant to the majority? Because you say so? How about incest? No? Because they're icky too?

This goes into legality, equality and precedent. And it is IN FACT a slippery slope. It is not a theory. It is a matter of fact in how the legal system actually operates. Anywhere there is a dead marriage law in a state, polygamists may legally marry alongside any gays allowed to do so. Any objection to that would be legally arbitrary and the clerk denying that license could be sued and would lose. Guaranteed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is only on her slippery slope.

No slippery slopes exist in fact concerning marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is only on her slippery slope.

No slippery slopes exist in fact concerning marriage equality.

How would you deny polygamists marrying today?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamists can marry anytime they want, Sil.

You are asking about state-sanctioned polygamy, for which there is no or little demand.

See you see slippery slopes when you are sitting in the bottom of a bowl.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamists can marry anytime they want, Sil.

You are asking about state-sanctioned polygamy, for which there is no or little demand.

See you see slippery slopes when you are sitting in the bottom of a bowl.

How would you deny polygamists LEGALLY marrying today Jake?

 

[mdk]

There isn't any need to say goodbye to democracy consider we are not one. I know you we wish the nation would regress back to the times where state could belittle and diminish the rights of those they deem unworthy but those days are setting. It seems marriage equality is here to stay despite all your efforts to slander and malign gays. I am sure you'll continue to predict that the sky will fall while the rest of us chuckle as your irrational views on gays get discarded on the trash heap of history.

Gays don't have special rights. They don't have the right to tell the majority "we are going to dissolve the mother/father model in marriage to children's collective detriment". They just don't have that right. The states have the right to allow that or not. But the fed cannot tell the state, "you have to let this deviant sex cult gut the definition of the mechanics of mother/father in marriage".

And BTW, which of the deviant sex behaviors aren't allowed to marry? Polygamy allowed right now to marry? No? Why not? Because they're repugnant to the majority? Because you say so? How about incest? No? Because they're icky too?

This goes into legality, equality and precedent. And it is IN FACT a slippery slope. It is not a theory. It is a matter of fact in how the legal system actually operates. Anywhere there is a dead marriage law in a state, polygamists may legally marry alongside any gays allowed to do so. Any objection to that would be legally arbitrary and the clerk denying that license could be sued and would lose. Guaranteed.

Indeed, gays do not have a special rights. Any heterosexual will also have access to marry someone of the same sex if they so wish.

The states don't get violate the rights of its citizens without a very good reason or a compelling interest. In almost every court room your side has been unable to demonstrate a compelling state interest.

Again, that dog doesn't hunt with me. I think polygamists and those that practice incest should be allowed to marry as well so long as all parties involved consent.

Your side is losing in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law. I suspect you will only become more rabidly anti-gay the more your side loses on this issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamists can marry anytime they want, Sil.

You are asking about state-sanctioned polygamy, for which there is no or little demand.

See you see slippery slopes when you are sitting in the bottom of a bowl.

How would you deny polygamists LEGALLY marrying today Jake?

Since is not an issue, it is not my concern.

Or yours.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays hide behind lawyers and phony moral righteousness. Gays are a tiny percentage, for all the legal and moral scrutiny. For all that, My parents used to smoke cigarettes and died from lung cancer. The AMA used to endorse smoking as healthy. The Tobacco industry had money and bought out the whole industry, Hollywood portrayed smoking as glamorous. Well isn't that what GAYS are doing NOW?

You think Gays are portraying cigarettes as glamorous?

 

[Syriusly]

Polygamists can marry anytime they want, Sil.

You are asking about state-sanctioned polygamy, for which there is no or little demand.

See you see slippery slopes when you are sitting in the bottom of a bowl.

How would you deny polygamists LEGALLY marrying today Jake?

Because state laws forbid it, and they haven't been overturned.

Not exactly brain surgery here.

 

[Syriusly]

There isn't any need to say goodbye to democracy consider we are not one. I know you we wish the nation would regress back to the times where state could belittle and diminish the rights of those they deem unworthy but those days are setting. It seems marriage equality is here to stay despite all your efforts to slander and malign gays. I am sure you'll continue to predict that the sky will fall while the rest of us chuckle as your irrational views on gays get discarded on the trash heap of history.

Gays don't have special rights. .

They should have the same rights as everyone else- and everyone else can adopt as long as they meet the criteria for adoption.

You would deny gays equal rights- in adoption, in marriage- and speaking of slippery slopes- who knows where you would end in seeking discrimination against homosexuals? Force them to wear pink stars?

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. .

Well technically- once again- you are just pulling stuff out of your posterior.

The LGBT community is somewhere between 2-8% of the population- hence- a minority.

And they are a minority group that has suffered historic persecution- Nazi's sent them to concentration camps, the U.S. had laws forbidding them from serving in the State Department and Armed forces, and prosecuted homosexuals for private consensual behavior.

The only question remains whether they are a protected class in regards to the law

 

[Syriusly]

The power Gays have now is equivocal to what the tobacco industry had years ago, with their lawyers and all that, twisting minds to fit their little agenda. The AMA even sold tobacco use as healthy, back then...Well, Homosexuality is obviously just another sexual dysfunction, a mental issue, not a social class. We all have the same rights in America. No less, no more.

This thread is about denying homosexuals the right to adopt children.

Explain to me how that equals 'the same rights in America'?

 

[Silhouette]

How would you deny polygamists LEGALLY marrying today Jake?

Since is not an issue, it is not my concern.

Or yours.

Polygamy marraige is a concern of the Browns of Utah/Nevada. Can they get a marriage license today Jake? Why or why not?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh....Jaaaaake....? Can the Browns get a marriage license today or not? Why or why not?

I notice the poll at the top is right in line with the "churches" poll. 77% vs 83%, right in that 10-point super-high margin opposed to gay marriage making legal inroads into churches either marrying them or adopting children to them.