The Homosexual Dilemma

[GreenBean]

So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

A serious drug addict.

We are not talking about your drug issues- the question I asked was very straightforward:

So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

Yes or No?

In the scientific realm - there is no such thing as a simple answer - only simple people . If you are too simple minded to comprehend the correlation between the two - may I suggest you limit yourself to conversations pertaining to the color of your eye shadow or what dress you should wear next time you venture out in drag.

 

[GreenBean]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

Why can't you marry a dog? Specifically?

Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'

So what you're saying is that if Rover wags his tail when you display your schwanz - it's not because he thinks it's a snack - it's because he wants you to explore his fecal cavity with it -
Is that what you consider consent ?

Now ... what about that toddler in the crib ... when you stick a bottle in his mouth and he stops crying - I would assume you consider that consent to stick something else in .... ???

 

[GreenBean]

They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
participation.

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her. Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times. But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her. We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey. We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick. We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject... Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet. But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED: it hurts... A LOT. And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... . What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise. And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it. Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.

It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies. And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
"And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price." I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized? You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you. Do you actually believe your story is unique. I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid. As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?

Marriage is designed by nature,?

Marriage has nothing to do with nature.

'Nature' doesn't care whether people marry or not.

Nor does it care whether people die or not - "Nature" is what brings on the plagues of gay disease ....

 

[Syriusly]

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!

Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....

When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile." The chamber erupted in laughter. "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said, and the chamber filled with laughter again. Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."
​

At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing

Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed. So you told a lie. Now you even admit it.

Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards

Here is what you claimed:
"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.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Oh and your claim about

That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.

Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.

 

[Syriusly]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

Why can't you marry a dog? Specifically?

Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'

So what you're saying is that if Rover wags his tail when you display your schwanz - it's not because he thinks it's a snack - it's because he wants you to explore his fecal cavity with it -
Is that what you consider consent ?

Now ... what about that toddler in the crib ... when you stick a bottle in his mouth and he stops crying - I would assume you consider that consent to stick something else in .... ???

Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'. I am seeing a big pattern here.

I can't believe that all Conservatives are unable to tell the difference between rape and sex with a consenting adult- is it just the Conservatives who are also bigots?

 

[GreenBean]

...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.

Huh... Ok. Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign? Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity? Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?

Or not...? And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with "inspired reasoning" , or something else?

Take your time... .

Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual? Take your time to think about it.

Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition - That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?

 

[Syriusly]

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her. Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times. But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her. We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey. We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick. We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject... Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet. But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED: it hurts... A LOT. And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... . What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise. And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it. Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.

It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies. And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
"And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price." I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized? You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you. Do you actually believe your story is unique. I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid. As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?

Marriage is designed by nature,?

Marriage has nothing to do with nature.

'Nature' doesn't care whether people marry or not.

Nor does it care whether people die or not - "Nature" is what brings on the plagues of gay disease ....

LOL....well nature brings on all diseases.....including 'straight' diseases like syphillis, which before humans invented anti-biotics was AIDs for the straight community. Nature brings us Ebola- Nature brought us polio- but humans invented a vaccine for that.

What any of that has to do with marriage? Nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.

Huh... Ok. Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign? Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity? Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?

Or not...? And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with "inspired reasoning" , or something else?

Take your time... .

Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual? Take your time to think about it.

Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition - That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?

I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.

You apparently however do.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?

I stand corrected:

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting read. But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.

It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.

Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.

Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?

Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.

My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.

I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults. To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.

Hopefully the federal judges will be bigots just like me and rule according to the repugnant nature of the case rather than a dispassionate reading of the 14th Amendment by today's vector of case law.

 

[GreenBean]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

Why can't you marry a dog? Specifically?

Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'

So what you're saying is that if Rover wags his tail when you display your schwanz - it's not because he thinks it's a snack - it's because he wants you to explore his fecal cavity with it -
Is that what you consider consent ?

Now ... what about that toddler in the crib ... when you stick a bottle in his mouth and he stops crying - I would assume you consider that consent to stick something else in .... ???

Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'. I am seeing a big pattern here.

I can't believe that all Conservatives are unable to tell the difference between rape and sex with a consenting adult- is it just the Conservatives who are also bigots?

You sir are a blithering Idiot - unable to engage in a simple debate - you have no ammunition to work with so you invent things - if you can't conduct yourself like a grownup then will quickly find yourself on many more ignore lists than you are currently on - you're about 2 postys away from mine . regards shithead.

 

[Syriusly]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights? .

Here is Saintmichaeldefendthem's actual statement:

What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights?

So Saint- tell us why you are defending pedophiles?

 

[Syriusly]

Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?

I stand corrected:

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting read. But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.

It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.

Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.

Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?

Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.

My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.

I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults. To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.

Hopefully the federal judges will be bigots just like me and rule according to the repugnant nature of the case rather than a dispassionate reading of the 14th Amendment by today's vector of case law.

My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.

I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults. To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.

Hopefully any judge can tell the difference between rape and consensual sex- I just don't know why you can't.

 

[GreenBean]

...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.

Huh... Ok. Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign? Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity? Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?

Or not...? And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with "inspired reasoning" , or something else?

Take your time... .

Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual? Take your time to think about it.

Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition - That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?

I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.

You apparently however do.

Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ? ---- are you aware of the "50 shades of Gay"

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

Why can't you marry a dog? Specifically?

Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'

If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.

 

[GreenBean]

between child rape and consensual sex between adults. To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.

AS has been stated time and time again in this thread and others - very few people really give a rats ass what two grownup degenerates do behind closed doors - that issue is merely the lame attempts of LGBT to frame the argument and deflect from the real issues

Homosexuality is one aspect of a list of closely related sexual and erotic psychosis which includes Pedophilia - Beastiality - transsexualism -genderism, Sado- Masochism and so forth ...In far too many cases a Gay man out of the closet is masking a pedophile still in the closet

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.

Then so is yours.

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.

When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.

The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.

So said the men opposing letting women vote.

And lots of other bigots who just opposed any change because they didn't like the people that the change would help.

Gender suffrage and lifestyle choice are two different things. Did you forget what we were discussing, 50 First Dates?

 

[Lilah]

...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.

Huh... Ok. Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign? Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity? Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?

Or not...? And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with "inspired reasoning" , or something else?

Take your time... .

Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual? Take your time to think about it.

Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition - That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?

I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.

You apparently however do.

Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ? ---- are you aware of the "50 shades of Gay"

Name that connection, please.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights? .

Here is Saintmichaeldefendthem's actual statement:

What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights?

So Saint- tell us why you are defending pedophiles?

Now you're being juvenile....unless you're really too simpleton to understand I was mimicking what will be real legal arguments by your comrades on the perverted Left. Are you confessing to being a dumbass?

 

[Seawytch]

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!

Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....

When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile." The chamber erupted in laughter. "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said, and the chamber filled with laughter again. Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."
​

At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing

Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed. So you told a lie. Now you even admit it.

So you listened to the audio of the 1967 case? You also, quite clearly, made the false claim (and I quote) "Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. " that is what I responded to.

 

[GreenBean]

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.

When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.

The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.

So said the men opposing letting women vote.

And lots of other bigots who just opposed any change because they didn't like the people that the change would help.

Gender suffrage and lifestyle choice are two different things. Did you forget what we were discussing, 50 First Dates?

St. Mike -Their constant deflections to "Gender suffrage" and racial issues are weak attempts at framing the argument to depict themselves as victims - when inb fact they are the victimizers.

Framing is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin.

Framing, when properly executed in social discourse short-circuits counter arguments . No one can speak up against an effective frame and say, Why, yes, I do think women should be raped and I do think women should be sex objects. when discussing the Feminist "rape culture" frame . Or in this case -Yes women should not be allowed to vote and blacks should still be slaves - it steals the wind from the sails of the victimized and portrays perverts as martyrs - when they are in fact tools of the oppressors.