Tomorrow You Will Apologize. The Year After, Persecute. How Cults Progress

[Silhouette]

... Gay Marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Legally, that is no longer the only way.

That's not necessarily true if challenges based on mandatory recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg go forward. The case may likely be reheard...especially if 2017 goes forward as I think it will.

Motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

 

[Montrovant]

... Gay Marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Legally, that is no longer the only way.

That's not necessarily true if challenges based on mandatory recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg go forward. The case may likely be reheard...especially if 2017 goes forward as I think it will.

Motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

So now, having been completely wrong about the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage, you think you will be right about it in two years after a mandatory recusal you've made up?

And yes, it is necessarily true that one man and one woman is no longer the only legal marriage. Even if that changes in the future, for the moment, it is the law.

I hope you enjoy trying to get your amendment passed.

 

[Skylar]

... Gay Marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Legally, that is no longer the only way.

That's not necessarily true if challenges based on mandatory recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg go forward. The case may likely be reheard...especially if 2017 goes forward as I think it will.

There's no such mandatory recusal. Nor will there be any impeachment. You already predicted an impeachment for the courts refusing Alabama's stay, insisting that when the republcians took the house and senate that there would be impeachment proceedings.

Nothing happened.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children.

You don't care about the welfare of children. You care about hurting gay people. And if you have to hurt children to do it, you'll gladly trade their suffering for the suffering of gays.

No thank you.

 

[Syriusly]

... Gay Marriage...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Legally, that is no longer the only way.

That's not necessarily true if challenges based on mandatory recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg go forward. The case may likely be reheard...especially if 2017 goes forward as I think it will.".

The case will not be 'reheard'- again just your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

The case will not be 'reheard'- again just your imagination.

The same long-shotism could've been applied to gay marriage 10 years ago...and look what happened. If you can imagine it, that's the first step to making it happen..

 

[Syriusly]

The case will not be 'reheard'- again just your imagination.

The same long-shotism could've been applied to gay marriage 10 years ago...and look what happened. If you can imagine it, that's the first step to making it happen..

Feel free to show me a Supreme Court case that has ever been 'reheard'.

Now if you are saying that 10 years from now a State might try to pass a similar law, just to test the case in the Supreme Court again- sure that could happen.

But Obergefall will not be reheard again- no matter how much you fantasize that it will.

 

[Skylar]

The case will not be 'reheard'- again just your imagination.

The same long-shotism could've been applied to gay marriage 10 years ago...and look what happened. If you can imagine it, that's the first step to making it happen..

'Imagine' being the operative word in your argument. As your entire narrative is completely imaginary. The Supreme Court has never 'reheard' a case in its history. They're revisited issues. But this isn't likely to be one of them. For as much as conservatives whine about how the State has been overridden......the actual constitutional issues of the State's definitions of marriage being overturned by the Federal Government were decided with the Loving Case.....almost 50 years ago.

 

[Silhouette]

I welcome, as I've been asking for pages now, either Skylar or Syriusly to say if they agree with ChrisL's comments in the OP. So far just ad homimens and strawmen....but I keep hope alive that they will weigh in on those very LGBT-controversial comments..

 

[Skylar]

I welcome, as I've been asking for pages now, either Skylar or Syriusly to say if they agree with ChrisL's comments in the OP. So far just ad homimens and strawmen....but I keep hope alive that they will weigh in on those very LGBT-controversial comments..

Oh, look. You're trying to change the topic.

Can I take it this one isn't working out well for you?

 

[Silhouette]

I welcome, as I've been asking for pages now, either Skylar or Syriusly to say if they agree with ChrisL's comments in the OP. So far just ad homimens and strawmen....but I keep hope alive that they will weigh in on those very LGBT-controversial comments..

Oh, look. You're trying to change the topic.

Can I take it this one isn't working out well for you?

No, that IS the topic. The topic is LGBTs eating their own because some of them feel like there should be limits to their own insane striving for change for change's sake. And I note that you refuse to answer the question. Again.

 

[Skylar]

I welcome, as I've been asking for pages now, either Skylar or Syriusly to say if they agree with ChrisL's comments in the OP. So far just ad homimens and strawmen....but I keep hope alive that they will weigh in on those very LGBT-controversial comments..

Oh, look. You're trying to change the topic.

Can I take it this one isn't working out well for you?

No, that IS the topic. The topic is LGBTs eating their own because some of them feel like there should be limits to their own insane striving for change for change's sake. And I note that you refuse to answer the question. Again.

You babbled about amendments...but abandoned it. You babbled about recusal. But abandoned it.

Keep running. Your arguments suffer from the same fundamental flaw that they always have: you genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

Which might explain why you keep calling gay people a 'cult'. You don't know what a cult is either.

 

[Silhouette]

Why won't you say how you feel about ChrisL's comments in the OP? Do you agree with her? Do you think minors should not have sex "change" operations? Yes or no? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

 

[Skylar]

Why won't you say how you feel about ChrisL's comments in the OP? Do you agree with her? Do you think minors should not have sex "change" operations? Yes or no? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

I think that transitioning when you're an adult is reasonable. As I've said before.

Why did you abandon your babble about imaginary 'amendments'? Why did you run from your absurd call for 'impeachment' of the USSC justices that disagreed with you?

And why do you keep trying to change the topic?

 

[Silhouette]

Why won't you say how you feel about ChrisL's comments in the OP? Do you agree with her? Do you think minors should not have sex "change" operations? Yes or no? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

I think that transitioning when you're an adult is reasonable. As I've said before.

Why did you abandon your babble about imaginary 'amendments'? Why did you run from your absurd call for 'impeachment' of the USSC justices that disagreed with you?

And why do you keep trying to change the topic?

Ok, so you are agreeing with ChrisL that Oregon funding minors getting "sex change" (amputation of healthy organ) surgery is child abuse? She called people who are doing this "sickos"...

Here are her exact words. She even says they must be in their 20s before "doctors" put them under the knife for amputation:

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.

So, do you agree with her?

 

[Silhouette]

Well Skylar? How does your cult resolve rifts in beliefs like this highly controversial amputation to mimic a delusion? Do you agree with ChrisL that it's always a bad idea?

 

[Silhouette]

Gosh Skylar. Usually you're SO VOCAL and can't be shut up about topics where anyone attacks the LGBT agenda. Suddenly you're as quiet as a churchmouse. Just say how ChrisL's comments sit with you and this standoff will be over.

 

[Skylar]

Why won't you say how you feel about ChrisL's comments in the OP? Do you agree with her? Do you think minors should not have sex "change" operations? Yes or no? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

I think that transitioning when you're an adult is reasonable. As I've said before.

Why did you abandon your babble about imaginary 'amendments'? Why did you run from your absurd call for 'impeachment' of the USSC justices that disagreed with you?

And why do you keep trying to change the topic?

Ok, so you are agreeing with ChrisL that Oregon funding minors getting "sex change" (amputation of healthy organ) surgery is child abuse? She called people who are doing this "sickos"...

Here are her exact words. She even says they must be in their 20s before "doctors" put them under the knife for amputation:

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.

So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me.

Your personal issues with ChrisL aren't my concern.

Well Skylar? How does your cult resolve rifts in beliefs like this highly controversial amputation to mimic a delusion? Do you agree with ChrisL that it's always a bad idea?

What 'cult' are you referring to? Remember, you don't actually know what a 'cult' is, nor have the slightest clue how to apply the term. You're just citing yourself. Which has a horrid track record of accuracy.

As for disagreements among gay folks, of course they are going to occur, just as they will among straights. Or whites. Or vegans. Or dancers. Where did you ever get the idea that in a group as large and diverse as the LGBT community, encompassing millions of individuals.......that everyone would agree on every issue? You can't get 12 people to agree on pizza toppings.

Your fundamental assumption that there will be no disagreement is ludicrous.

Disagreements will be dealt with the same way they are in any large group of people. What did you think was going to happen? Gladitorial fights? A break dancing competition to decide who is right? They'll use the same methods that everyone else uses.

And can I take it from your complete abandonment of all your 'amendment', 'recusal' and 'impeachment' babble, with you now refusing to even acknowledge such arguments ever existed......that you recognize them as meaningless wish fulfillment?

 

[ChrisL]

Why won't you say how you feel about ChrisL's comments in the OP? Do you agree with her? Do you think minors should not have sex "change" operations? Yes or no? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

I think that transitioning when you're an adult is reasonable. As I've said before.

Why did you abandon your babble about imaginary 'amendments'? Why did you run from your absurd call for 'impeachment' of the USSC justices that disagreed with you?

And why do you keep trying to change the topic?

Ok, so you are agreeing with ChrisL that Oregon funding minors getting "sex change" (amputation of healthy organ) surgery is child abuse? She called people who are doing this "sickos"...

Here are her exact words. She even says they must be in their 20s before "doctors" put them under the knife for amputation:

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.

So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me.

Your personal issues with ChrisL aren't my concern.

Well Skylar? How does your cult resolve rifts in beliefs like this highly controversial amputation to mimic a delusion? Do you agree with ChrisL that it's always a bad idea?

What 'cult' are you referring to? Remember, you don't actually know what a 'cult' is, nor have the slightest clue how to apply the term. You're just citing yourself. Which has a horrid track record of accuracy.

As for disagreements among gay folks, of course they are going to occur, just as they will among straights. Or whites. Or vegans. Or dancers. Where did you ever get the idea that in a group as large and diverse as the LGBT community, encompassing millions of individuals.......that everyone would agree on every issue? You can't get 12 people to agree on pizza toppings.

Your fundamental assumption that there will be no disagreement is ludicrous.

Disagreements will be dealt with the same way they are in any large group of people. What did you think was going to happen? Gladitorial fights? A break dancing competition to decide who is right? They'll use the same methods that everyone else uses.

And can I take it from your complete abandonment of all your 'amendment', 'recusal' and 'impeachment' babble, with you now refusing to even acknowledge such arguments ever existed......that you recognize them as meaningless wish fulfillment?

This poster seems to think that all the LGBT community are a cult and all have a nefarious agenda of trying to take over the world! Lol.

 

[Silhouette]

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.

So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me....

So you disagree with ChrisL. She at least says kids should wait until their "into their 20s". But she also seems to indicate that even then it's an idea only a "sicko" would promote. Her bent seems to be that amputating healthy genitals is never a good idea to solve what she seems to feel is an issue stemming from a mental and not a physical dysfunction.

And I agree. But you disagree. How can Syriusly be welcomed into the LGBT fold if she is against "T"? She vigorously defends all things gay, for example. Just not transgenderism. How do you address her rebellion on "T"?

 

[ChrisL]

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.

So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me....

So you disagree with ChrisL. She at least says kids should wait until their "into their 20s". But she also seems to indicate that even then it's an idea only a "sicko" would promote. Her bent seems to be that amputating healthy genitals is never a good idea to solve what she seems to feel is an issue stemming from a mental and not a physical dysfunction.

And I agree. But you disagree. How can Syriusly be welcomed into the LGBT fold if she is against "T"?

Seriously.