The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

Weakest comment of the day.

I don't know....he just doubled down by saying the law doesn't make us married.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia. The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".

This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people. Now you know.

Or not.

Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court. The Justices laughed out loud.

Oh...you might find this interesting:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Loving v. Virginia on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

Sound familiar?

The justices laughed out loud? Did somebody get that on film?

Their findings were based on discrimination in the law itself, that in only entailed marriage to a white person. That's illegal. I gave you your quote, so you can argue with the facts all you want. My job is done.

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

 

[bodecea]

The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.

not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

NAMBLA is going to be in the news quite a bit, using all your famous arguments to push their agenda through the courts. This is depravity springing from depravity. I just wonder if any of them will be honorable enough to give you people credit for a wining legal strategy.

Tell us more about your expertise on NAMBLA. You're the one who seems to know.

 

[g5000]

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit. Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population. Her aim was to allay their fears. She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.

http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf

So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts. I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.

Your twisted perception filters have failed you again.

Sanger was advocating birth control. This was a radical idea at the time, and she knew that ignorant people like yourself would claim they were trying to exterminate the negroes. She suggested the Federation have a minister explain the true goals (birth control) because of the inherent integrity a minister would bring to the conversation.

It was precisely because a minister WOULD NOT LIE that she suggested one be used to explain this was about birth control, not extermination.

And morons like you and Greenbean have just demonstrated her fears were well-founded. You have twisted her words to make her out to be an exterminator. QED.

 

[bodecea]

The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.

not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

 

[g5000]

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

Slippery slope fallacy.

A rational basis can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.

I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.

What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?

We see no rationality at all from you bigots. Things have to be explained to you in small words, and yet you continue to throw out logical fallacies and red herrings from the rube parrot toolbox.

The right that is in play with same sex marriage is "equal protection of the laws."

Uh huh. That's exactly what NAMBLA will say, perverts borrowing legal strategies from other perverts. They will twist the 14th Amendment like you did, find some sympathetic judges who don't have to answer to the people, and their agenda will succeed by judicial fiat. They will scream that their rights are being denied until somebody listens. What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

 

[bodecea]

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia. The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".

This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people. Now you know.

Or not.

Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court. The Justices laughed out loud.

Oh...you might find this interesting:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Loving v. Virginia on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

Sound familiar?

The justices laughed out loud? Did somebody get that on film?

Their findings were based on discrimination in the law itself, that in only entailed marriage to a white person. That's illegal. I gave you your quote, so you can argue with the facts all you want. My job is done.

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

You can't get the link I have there?

 

[bodecea]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

Slippery slope fallacy.

A rational basis can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.

I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.

What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?

We see no rationality at all from you bigots. Things have to be explained to you in small words, and yet you continue to throw out logical fallacies and red herrings from the rube parrot toolbox.

The right that is in play with same sex marriage is "equal protection of the laws."

Uh huh. That's exactly what NAMBLA will say, perverts borrowing legal strategies from other perverts. They will twist the 14th Amendment like you did, find some sympathetic judges who don't have to answer to the people, and their agenda will succeed by judicial fiat. They will scream that their rights are being denied until somebody listens. What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?

Again. YOU are the one telling US about what NAMBLA will do.

 

[bodecea]

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

What's that supposed to mean?

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

 

[g5000]

Uh huh. That's exactly what NAMBLA will say, perverts borrowing legal strategies from other perverts. They will twist the 14th Amendment like you did, find some sympathetic judges who don't have to answer to the people, and their agenda will succeed by judicial fiat. They will scream that their rights are being denied until somebody listens. What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?

Okay. I see you need some additional head pounding.

If NAMBLA ever took their cause to court, they would fail. They could not "borrow legal strategies" from anyone, because there is NO rational basis for excluding gays while there IS a rational basis for excluding pedophilia.

And this is why your slippery slope fallacy catastrophically fails.

I'm afraid I really can't dumb this down any more than I have. If you don't get it by now, you are beyond help.

 

[bodecea]

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

Not my problem You want to know...take the time.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

What's that supposed to mean?

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

Tread carefully, Trout. If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.

 

[bodecea]

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

What's that supposed to mean?

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

Tread carefully, Trout. If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.

Why are you saying that? I've done no such thing. Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

Not my problem You want to know...take the time.

Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.

In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.

Stop lying, Fish breath!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

What's that supposed to mean?

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

Tread carefully, Trout. If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.

Why are you saying that? I've done no such thing. Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.

Actually you did and I didn't. Do it again and I'll report you.

 

[bodecea]

Poor boy. The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped. Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

Not my problem You want to know...take the time.

Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.

In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.

Stop lying, Fish breath!

I've provided you with the audio of the SCOTUS proceedings. You are chosing (actually whining) to not listen to it. Not my problem. But it HAS been provided to you.

 

[bodecea]

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

What's that supposed to mean?

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

Tread carefully, Trout. If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.

Why are you saying that? I've done no such thing. Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.

Actually you did and I didn't. Do it again and I'll report you.

If this is your strategy to try to silence me, go right ahead. It's not as if you can legitimately debate anyways.