Utah's Ethical Case Against Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

..As to showing pictures of behavior you don't approve of, that is pretty selective and disingenuous. Are we to presume that is the behavior of all gays at all times? What about the people we see in such videos as "Girls Gone Wild"? The majority of those people are straight, so should we ban straight marriage as well? Most porn stars are straight, so we conclude straight people are porn stars?

Essentially, what you are doing is applying one standard to the people you don't approve of and not applying it to the people you do approve, so you can arrive at the conclusion you want. There is nothing "ethical" about that.

Again, the DIFFERENCE is the matter of "pride". Of sober and intentful pride to display the behavior as a norm that all should accept. "Girls gone wild" isn't portraying itself that way. Undoubtedly many of the aging women who participated in that now are utterly mortified, not locking arms with other younger idiots taking their place in a matter of "pride" down main street.

Porn stars aren't parading down main street [unless they're gay, then naturally it would be fine....speaking of double standards...] saying to the world and little kids 'hey we're proud of what we do! You should try it too!"

Nope. You know the crucial difference is one of pride. Of PRIDE. The cult of LGBT is proud to display public nudity and lewd behavior in a sober manner in front of anyone, even the littlest of kids.

And that presents a problem when it comes to adopting orphans out to the cult members. Utah's concern is 100% validated.

 

[PratchettFan]

..As to showing pictures of behavior you don't approve of, that is pretty selective and disingenuous. Are we to presume that is the behavior of all gays at all times? What about the people we see in such videos as "Girls Gone Wild"? The majority of those people are straight, so should we ban straight marriage as well? Most porn stars are straight, so we conclude straight people are porn stars?

Essentially, what you are doing is applying one standard to the people you don't approve of and not applying it to the people you do approve, so you can arrive at the conclusion you want. There is nothing "ethical" about that.

Again, the DIFFERENCE is the matter of "pride". Of sober and intentful pride to display the behavior as a norm that all should accept. "Girls gone wild" isn't portraying itself that way. Undoubtedly many of the aging women who participated in that now are utterly mortified, not locking arms with other younger idiots taking their place in a matter of "pride" down main street.

Porn stars aren't parading down main street [unless they're gay, then naturally it would be fine....speaking of double standards...] saying to the world and little kids 'hey we're proud of what we do! You should try it too!"

Nope. You know the crucial difference is one of pride. Of PRIDE. The cult of LGBT is proud to display public nudity and lewd behavior in a sober manner in front of anyone, even the littlest of kids.

And that presents a problem when it comes to adopting orphans out to the cult members. Utah's concern is 100% validated.

So the difference is that they are gay. As I said, nothing ethical about this position.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Rut-roh Utah...

STUDY: Gay Men Could Reproduce Through Stem Cells, Without Egg Donor / Queerty

"A new discovery out of Japan has the potential to allow gay men to create an egg of their own stem cells, without the use of a female donor. Unlike surrogacy, the child would be born with the DNA of both parents."

 

[TheOldSchool]

I get it. You're angry that someone posted a thread about the 10th federal circuit court of appeals extending the ban on gay marriage this month and approving of a ban on gay-adopting last month. And that a person posted a thread outlining Utah's legitimate ethical concerns about adopting out to people who do sexual exhibitionism as a matter of "sober pride" down mainstreet USA, anyday, anytime.

When Gay marriage is upheld in Utah it will circumvent the loophole they found in discriminating against gay couples when it comes to adoption.

 

[Silhouette]

So the difference is that they are gay. As I said, nothing ethical about this position.

The difference is that they are soberly-proud on a daily basis of public displays of lewdness, nudity and sexual exhibitionism...down main street where they know children are present and watching. Foolish youthful indiscretion and drunken bruja-jas do not qualify as "waking up the next day or a few years down the road and still feeling proud and announcing that pride to the world's children".

I know you know the difference. And that difference is crucial when talking about adopting our most vulnerable citizens out to people who if are proud of that type of behavior, sober, ongoing and intentfully down mainstreet in front of children, doesn't take much imagination to anticipate what they'll do behind closed doors in front of children.

You play, you pay.

 

[PratchettFan]

So the difference is that they are gay. As I said, nothing ethical about this position.

The difference is that they are soberly-proud on a daily basis of public displays of lewdness, nudity and sexual exhibitionism...down main street where they know children are present and watching. Foolish youthful indiscretion and drunken bruja-jas do not qualify as "waking up the next day or a few years down the road and still feeling proud and announcing that pride to the world's children".

I know you know the difference. And that difference is crucial when talking about adopting our most vulnerable citizens out to people who if are proud of that type of behavior, sober, ongoing and intentfully down mainstreet in front of children, doesn't take much imagination to anticipate what they'll do behind closed doors in front of children.

You play, you pay.

Yes. I do know the difference, even if you won't acknolwedge it. The pictures of those kids on the beach that were posted and you said "no kids there" was on a public beach. You think there were no kids on a public beach in the summer. Please. The difference is that they are gay and you don't approve of them. That is why you wouldn't respond to my point about my father getting married in his 70's. You don't disapprove of that even though there would be no children because it has nothing to do with children, only that they are gay.

If a particular person or couple have a lifestyle that is not conducive to children, then that should be approached soley on that aspect. Not because you think and entire group of people behave in the same manner. So long as the government is in the marriage business, then everyone should have the same rights to those benefits.

 

[bodecea]

Every year over 75% of the world's orphans go unadopted. Millions of children in this country alone have found homes thanks to gay parents.

That sounds like a contribution to me

Did you read the OP? You consider adoption to people who promote lewd sexual behavior, soberly and intently in broad daylight in front of kids down main street as a good contribution?

I'd say they're safer and happier in orphanges than being exposed to this culture. And if this is how they behave in the open, it makes you wonder what behind closed doors will be like when they get those kids home? That's the first wonder that adoption agents have to consider with any prospective applicants: not just what's presenting itself at the agency, but what environment behind closed doors that can be predicted from clues gleaned at those interviews..

And if you want a clue, look at the picture in my last post..

How many Gay Pride Parades have you attended, Silhouette? In person?

I'll ask this again since he may have missed it....Silhouette....how many gay pride parades have you attended in person?

 

[Moonglow]

Ethically speaking, those in Utah will outlaw senior citizens from marrying since their is no reproductive state sanctified actions that will be produced in such unions..

 

[PratchettFan]

Ethically speaking, those in Utah will outlaw senior citizens from marrying since their is no reproductive state sanctified actions that will be produced in such unions..

Further, vasectomies and tubal ligation will need to be reported by doctors resulting in mandatory divorce - unless the couple already have children. Medical examines will be required to insure fertility prior to the issuance of marriage licences. Perhaps a probationary period with a mandatory pregnancy within say the first 24 months after the wedding or an automatic annulment?

Unless, of course, this has nothing to do with children.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes. I do know the difference, even if you won't acknolwedge it. The pictures of those kids on the beach that were posted and you said "no kids there" was on a public beach. You think there were no kids on a public beach in the summer. Please. The difference is that they are gay and you don't approve of them. That is why you wouldn't respond to my point about my father getting married in his 70's. You don't disapprove of that even though there would be no children because it has nothing to do with children, only that they are gay.

If a particular person or couple have a lifestyle that is not conducive to children, then that should be approached soley on that aspect. Not because you think and entire group of people behave in the same manner. So long as the government is in the marriage business, then everyone should have the same rights to those benefits.

Those beaches at Spring Break are publicly known in an isolated time-frame to be idiot-fests of young colleged aged drunk people. It is common public knowledge. Beaches are a special out of the way place people actually have to prepare to go to ahead of time to accomodate the conditions. They check weather reports, surf reports, planned large events [like Spring Break] which might interfere with their peaceful enjoyment of the beach.

Anyone who brings little kids to Spring Break at the beach is begging to disappoint themselves. And in none of the pictures I've seen of Spring Break are there any families with little ones nearby "enjoying the peaceful surroundings of a day at the beach".

Main street USA however is a public thoroughfare where people have to come and go, dragging kids with them on errands. Usually the "pride" events scheduled there are not conspicuously advertised as a rule. The LGBTers tend to spring it on the public; precisely because they aim not to convert the choir, but instead to mesmerize youthful "curious ones" with all the bright colors of the rainbow and gyrating fleshy bodies, sparkling costumes, pinwheels, pennants. floats and all the rest. The parades are aimed to entice youth...who might be..."bi-curious"...you know...being "born that way"....

Performing lewd sexual acts in front of this audience that you soberly planned to corner in their daily walks and pitch to as a matter of "pride", means you do not qualify to adopt children.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll ask this again since he may have missed it....Silhouette....how many gay pride parades have you attended in person?

Zero. And never will. Especially not with children in my trust and care.

However, in researching the topic we're debating right now, I've come across enough pictures posted of them and video footage and news reports and footage etc. that a clear concept of what they entail emerges for me...and for any adoption agent charged with the care and well being of their wards. The threshold for suspicion is much lower for adoption agencies because it is their job to be suspicious of the applicants. It's a predatory world out there and children are often the first targets...

 

[bodecea]

Yes. I do know the difference, even if you won't acknolwedge it. The pictures of those kids on the beach that were posted and you said "no kids there" was on a public beach. You think there were no kids on a public beach in the summer. Please. The difference is that they are gay and you don't approve of them. That is why you wouldn't respond to my point about my father getting married in his 70's. You don't disapprove of that even though there would be no children because it has nothing to do with children, only that they are gay.

If a particular person or couple have a lifestyle that is not conducive to children, then that should be approached soley on that aspect. Not because you think and entire group of people behave in the same manner. So long as the government is in the marriage business, then everyone should have the same rights to those benefits.

Those beaches at Spring Break are publicly known in an isolated time-frame to be idiot-fests of young colleged aged drunk people. It is common public knowledge. Beaches are a special out of the way place people actually have to prepare to go to ahead of time to accomodate the conditions. They check weather reports, surf reports, planned large events [like Spring Break] which might interfere with their peaceful enjoyment of the beach.

Anyone who brings little kids to Spring Break at the beach is begging to disappoint themselves. And in none of the pictures I've seen of Spring Break are there any families with little ones nearby "enjoying the peaceful surroundings of a day at the beach".

Main street USA however is a public thoroughfare where people have to come and go, dragging kids with them on errands. Usually the "pride" events scheduled there are not conspicuously advertised as a rule. The LGBTers tend to spring it on the public; precisely because they aim not to convert the choir, but instead to mesmerize youthful "curious ones" with all the bright colors of the rainbow and gyrating fleshy bodies, sparkling costumes, pinwheels, pennants. floats and all the rest. The parades are aimed to entice youth...who might be..."bi-curious"...you know...being "born that way"....

Performing lewd sexual acts in front of this audience that you soberly planned to corner in their daily walks and pitch to as a matter of "pride", means you do not qualify to adopt children.

Wait...you're saying that those beaches are not "public"? Seriously?


And who is performing "lewd sexual acts" at gay pride parades? Have you ever actually been to a gay pride parade, Silhouette?

 

[bodecea]

I'll ask this again since he may have missed it....Silhouette....how many gay pride parades have you attended in person?

Zero. And never will. Especially not with children in my trust and care.

However, in researching the topic we're debating right now, I've come across enough pictures posted of them and video footage and news reports and footage etc. that a clear concept of what they entail emerges for me...and for any adoption agent charged with the care and well being of their wards. The threshold for suspicion is much lower for adoption agencies because it is their job to be suspicious of the applicants. It's a predatory world out there and children are often the first targets...

That last pic could be 100s dressed like that IN PUBLIC during Carnival.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes. I do know the difference, even if you won't acknolwedge it. The pictures of those kids on the beach that were posted and you said "no kids there" was on a public beach. You think there were no kids on a public beach in the summer. Please. The difference is that they are gay and you don't approve of them. That is why you wouldn't respond to my point about my father getting married in his 70's. You don't disapprove of that even though there would be no children because it has nothing to do with children, only that they are gay.

If a particular person or couple have a lifestyle that is not conducive to children, then that should be approached soley on that aspect. Not because you think and entire group of people behave in the same manner. So long as the government is in the marriage business, then everyone should have the same rights to those benefits.

Those beaches at Spring Break are publicly known in an isolated time-frame to be idiot-fests of young colleged aged drunk people. It is common public knowledge. Beaches are a special out of the way place people actually have to prepare to go to ahead of time to accomodate the conditions. They check weather reports, surf reports, planned large events [like Spring Break] which might interfere with their peaceful enjoyment of the beach.

Anyone who brings little kids to Spring Break at the beach is begging to disappoint themselves. And in none of the pictures I've seen of Spring Break are there any families with little ones nearby "enjoying the peaceful surroundings of a day at the beach".

Main street USA however is a public thoroughfare where people have to come and go, dragging kids with them on errands. Usually the "pride" events scheduled there are not conspicuously advertised as a rule. The LGBTers tend to spring it on the public; precisely because they aim not to convert the choir, but instead to mesmerize youthful "curious ones" with all the bright colors of the rainbow and gyrating fleshy bodies, sparkling costumes, pinwheels, pennants. floats and all the rest. The parades are aimed to entice youth...who might be..."bi-curious"...you know...being "born that way"....

Performing lewd sexual acts in front of this audience that you soberly planned to corner in their daily walks and pitch to as a matter of "pride", means you do not qualify to adopt children.

Wait...you're saying that those beaches are not "public"? Seriously?


And who is performing "lewd sexual acts" at gay pride parades? Have you ever actually been to a gay pride parade, Silhouette?

Quote where I said that liar.

What I said is highlighted in bold. Beaches are not a public daily thoroughfare for families. They are a destination. Big difference when cornered off for lewd displays. Spring Break, the exact timing, is known everywhere to be a "stay away event" for families with young kids. Not so when the "pride" parade springs up on main street essentially unannounced in but a few tiny press leaks at the last minute.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. I do know the difference, even if you won't acknolwedge it. The pictures of those kids on the beach that were posted and you said "no kids there" was on a public beach. You think there were no kids on a public beach in the summer. Please. The difference is that they are gay and you don't approve of them. That is why you wouldn't respond to my point about my father getting married in his 70's. You don't disapprove of that even though there would be no children because it has nothing to do with children, only that they are gay.

If a particular person or couple have a lifestyle that is not conducive to children, then that should be approached soley on that aspect. Not because you think and entire group of people behave in the same manner. So long as the government is in the marriage business, then everyone should have the same rights to those benefits.

Those beaches at Spring Break are publicly known in an isolated time-frame to be idiot-fests of young colleged aged drunk people. It is common public knowledge. Beaches are a special out of the way place people actually have to prepare to go to ahead of time to accomodate the conditions. They check weather reports, surf reports, planned large events [like Spring Break] which might interfere with their peaceful enjoyment of the beach.

Anyone who brings little kids to Spring Break at the beach is begging to disappoint themselves. And in none of the pictures I've seen of Spring Break are there any families with little ones nearby "enjoying the peaceful surroundings of a day at the beach".

Main street USA however is a public thoroughfare where people have to come and go, dragging kids with them on errands. Usually the "pride" events scheduled there are not conspicuously advertised as a rule. The LGBTers tend to spring it on the public; precisely because they aim not to convert the choir, but instead to mesmerize youthful "curious ones" with all the bright colors of the rainbow and gyrating fleshy bodies, sparkling costumes, pinwheels, pennants. floats and all the rest. The parades are aimed to entice youth...who might be..."bi-curious"...you know...being "born that way"....

Performing lewd sexual acts in front of this audience that you soberly planned to corner in their daily walks and pitch to as a matter of "pride", means you do not qualify to adopt children.

By your own admission all you know about the subject are pictures. People do not tend to pass around the boring pictures, so that is what you base your position on. I reject it as utterly unfounded.

I fully support the right of consenting adults to marry whomever they please. I consider people who do not have a history of child abuse to be qualfied to adopt, regardless of the sexual leanings. When I vote, I typically vote based upon the candidates views on personal liberty - so I would definitely vote against anyone with your position since it is diametrically opposed to liberty.

 

[emilynghiem]

That picture you are showing...if it weren't for the rainbow flags, etc. it could just as easily be Mardi Gras or Spring Break anywhere warm by the beach. Where is your outrage about those events?

Yes, there ARE Christian groups who preach and complain about celebrating "drunkenness"
and "sexual culture" in general.

We may not have people lobbying for their drinking rights,
but we have people lobbying for marijuana legalization --

And YES people complain about those POT campaigns as much as pushing gay legislation.
They argue it is promoting social decline and destroying future generations of our nation.

Just because the media doesn't report such outrage, doesn't mean it hasn't been going on!

 

[emilynghiem]

Quote where I said that liar.

What I said is highlighted in bold. Beaches are not a public daily thoroughfare for families. They are a destination. Big difference when cornered off for lewd displays. Spring Break, the exact timing, is known everywhere to be a "stay away event" for families with young kids. Not so when the "pride" parade springs up on main street essentially unannounced in but a few tiny press leaks at the last minute.

Hi [MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]
I agree these pictures are as negative biased as possible, as are the Christian preaching cited as example that make people reject "all Christianity as intolerance and hatred"

both sides pick the worst possible examples to argue their cases against the other

Where there has been a horrible bias on the left,
instead of DISTINGUISHING the abusive fraud in "conversion therapy"
from effective spiritual healing has helped people regardless of gender/orientation

the pro-gay proponents seek to
BAN the choice of such therapy
and/or treat ALL homosexuality as natural

while at the same time criticizing religious opponents
for teaching
ALL homosexuality is UNnatural and
Requires therapy to change

In Truth, there are both cases going on,
and people should be FREE to determine for themselves if they
are experiencing natural or unnatural attractions
and going through healing of any abuses or conflicts they have

NEITHER position should be pushed while negating any other choice
or that's "antichoice" which the left claims to be against such dogmatic oppression

Silhouette there is no photo of this "antichoice" hypocrisy you can post.
Instead, people resort to posting other inciteful images to fight about,
and miss the real points that should be addressed and resolved!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Utah's Ethical Case Against Gay Marriage

Actually it’s Utah’s failed case, and there’s nothing ‘ethical’ about it.

In order for any state to be consistent and Constitutional with its application of this ‘rationale,’ it must also disallow infertile opposite-sex couples to marry, and compel older opposite-sex couples to divorce when procreation is no longer possible.

Indeed, marriage is not about procreation, nor is procreation a prerequisite for marriage in any jurisdiction, as marriage is a partnership between two equal persons in a committed relationship, same- or opposite-sex, with or without children.

In fact, the Constitution protects the right of persons to determine for themselves personal, private matters concerning procreation absent interference by the state:

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Consequently, in addition to being in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the desire to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on the ability to procreate or not also violates gay Americans’ right to privacy.

No matter how those hostile to gay Americans attempt to configure and spin their ignorance and hate, their position will always end up being repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Sillyhouette sure loves him some photos of gay people

 

[PratchettFan]

Quote where I said that liar.

What I said is highlighted in bold. Beaches are not a public daily thoroughfare for families. They are a destination. Big difference when cornered off for lewd displays. Spring Break, the exact timing, is known everywhere to be a "stay away event" for families with young kids. Not so when the "pride" parade springs up on main street essentially unannounced in but a few tiny press leaks at the last minute.

Hi [MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]
I agree these pictures are as negative biased as possible, as are the Christian preaching cited as example that make people reject "all Christianity as intolerance and hatred"

both sides pick the worst possible examples to argue their cases against the other

Where there has been a horrible bias on the left,
instead of DISTINGUISHING the abusive fraud in "conversion therapy"
from effective spiritual healing has helped people regardless of gender/orientation

the pro-gay proponents seek to
BAN the choice of such therapy
and/or treat ALL homosexuality as natural

while at the same time criticizing religious opponents
for teaching
ALL homosexuality is UNnatural and
Requires therapy to change

In Truth, there are both cases going on,
and people should be FREE to determine for themselves if they
are experiencing natural or unnatural attractions
and going through healing of any abuses or conflicts they have

NEITHER position should be pushed while negating any other choice
or that's "antichoice" which the left claims to be against such dogmatic oppression

Silhouette there is no photo of this "antichoice" hypocrisy you can post.
Instead, people resort to posting other inciteful images to fight about,
and miss the real points that should be addressed and resolved!

What are the real points to be addressed and resolved?