Get a load of THIS!
The above linked article seems quite clearly to suggest that if one thing happens, such as state level enactment of laws that copy the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, then all sorts of nasty will follow. The argument is that by allowing businesses to opt out of providing their products or services for sale to those who seek them for celebrations of homosexual "weddings", then obviously homosexuals will be discriminated against when seeking to engage in all other sorts of business, such as, for example, buying groceries. That sounds very much like the slippery slope argument that is considered fallacious when used by opponents of pro-homosexual legislation (especially same-sex weddings--SSM). Opponents believe, with much justification now that we're beginning to see manifestations, that other groups, such as those favoring polygamous unions, would seek legal recognition for their unions based on the same arguments that have led to the same for homosexuals.
But here's the obvious difference the homosexual activist pretends doesn't exist: The argument of the SSM opponent is that ANY union that does not meet the normal criteria for state licensing of marital unions (one man/one woman, not closely related, of legal age, neither currently married) fails to qualify for a license and state recognition, while no one who meets the criteria, which is the definition of marriage (legally, up until now in some states), is denied a license. Thus, ejecting any criterion is justification for ejecting any other and really, mandates that the ejection of any other be given the same consideration since the arguments for doing so were used by the homosexuals in ejecting the criterion that had prevented the licensing of their unions. And again, as we are now seeing the polygamous push for the same considerations, the "slippery slope" argument used by SSM opponents is clearly not fallacy at all, but coming to fruition.
However, the activist wants to insist that because a person of faith (or principle, for that matter) may discriminate against behaviors, then that will lead to that person of faith discriminating against the person who engages in that behavior. But that would only be likely if the person engaging in whatever behavior offends the person of faith intends that every business transaction is for the purpose of enhancing an offending behavior he in which he will engage, AND makes that intention known to the business person of faith.
It's ludicrous and frankly, a dishonest portrayal of the intention of people of faith who wish to live out their lives and conduct business according to the tenets of their faith. While it may be true that some would try to use a religious exemption to avoid doing business with an Irishman, one would be very hard pressed to prove that this is common amongst people of faith in general. It just doesn't happen as seems to be the truth in every case of this nature that has been brought to light. None of the people forced to defend their Constitutionally protected rights have demonstrated the will to discriminate against anyone simply for being who or what they are. They refused a very specific request for a very specific reason that should be respected by the very people who insist that everyone should respect their immoral beliefs and push for legislation that forces the country to do so.
The linked article is simply another illustration of the dishonesty so necessary in achieving the goals of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
They keep making it an issue of discriminating against people, when really it is discriminating against particular activities. As long as they falsely represent what is happening, they will win the emotion game. After all, that is how they were able to win the "civil rights" argument.
Another one bites the dust: Idaho.
U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale wrote in the ruling Tuesday evening that Idaho's laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutionally deny gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry.
Dale says marriage works a fundamental change on the lives of all who experience it, and holds immense personal and spiritual significance. She says Idaho's laws wrongly stigmatize gay and lesbian couples and relegate their families to second-class status without sufficient reason.
The judge asserting all that stuff doesn't make it so. The homosexual practitioners have the same right to marry as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, of age, and not closely related.
By this judge's reasoning, no one can deny brother and sister marriages, or father-daugher marriages, etc.
Two people of the same sex will never be married, no matter what the law says. You can call a dandelion a rose all you want, but it remains a dandelion nevertheless.
"Dale says marriage works a fundamental change on the lives of all who experience it, and holds immense personal and spiritual significance."
Of course, this isn't at all the reason why the states had taken an interest in the lasting union of a man and a woman, is it? No, little Jimmy. Go and research that question for a change and stop pretending that the state MUST see interest where none exists.
"The reason for this is (and I have said this many time here, but it just seem to sink into your thick skull), the state can deny rights if it can show a compelling state interest for doing so."
Funny (but not unexpected) that you haven't shown why that judge finds a compelling interest in denying to those other groups. Just as in pretending the state has an interest in SSM when it doesn't, you assert that that same interest doesn't exist in the unions of close relations, young people and groups. So what is that compelling reason you think the state has for denying those groups that doesn't exist for SSM. OR, show what the compelling interest the state has in SSM that equates to why it first took interest in normal marriages.
Then, see if you can explain why a marriage isn't a marriage without the state licensing it.
Jim,
The judge's claim about "state interest" was arbitrary. There is plenty of state interest against approving same-sex unions.
No, those people aren't really married. Marriage has a definition of being between members of the opposite sex. Call a tail a leg but it remains a tail nevertheless.
And there are no "churches" which accept and promote same-sex unions. Those claiming to be "churches" while approving what God has condemned are nothing but goat-pens led by goat-herds.
Funny (but not unexpected) that you haven't shown why that judge finds a compelling interest in denying to those other groups.
Since none of those other groups have brought cases before this or any other judge, no judge has had any need to find a compelling interest. If someone does, the state can present it's compelling interest and the judge can decide at that time.
Just as in pretending the state has an interest in SSM when it doesn't
You are so lost you don't know which was is up. The state doesn't need an interest in SSM to allow it, and I've not pretended it does. AND you have admitted right there that it doesn't have one. The only need for a compelling interest is the one to deny SS marriage. And that, as you say, doesn't exist.
you assert that that same interest doesn't exist in the unions of close relations, young people and groups.
I didn't assert that at all. I said let them sue and let the state present their compelling interest to continue to deny them the right to marry. I believe the state will succeed in that matter.
show what the compelling interest the state has in SSM that equates to why it first took interest in normal marriages.
Again, you just don't get it. The state has no interest in SSM nor does it need one to allow it. It must have a compelling interest in not allowing it in order to make that ban Constitutional.
Then, see if you can explain why a marriage isn't a marriage without the state licensing it.
Were you drinking when you posted this? A marriage enjoys the legal benefits and protections of marriage when it is legal and licensed by a state.
The judge's claim about "state interest" was arbitrary. There is plenty of state interest against approving same-sex unions.
Name one. The claim was not arbitrary. The judge used three different legal criteria based on years of legal precedent to test whether the state's ban on gay marriage passed Constitutional requirements. The state failed on all three including the one most easily defended.
those people aren't really married. Marriage has a definition of being between members of the opposite sex.
Clearly that is no longer true. Same sex couples who have obtained marriage licenses are recognized as married and enjoy the benefits and protections of legal marriage from the Federal Government and for all of the 17 states that now recognize them.
Therefore they are married no matter what you say.
there are no "churches" which accept and promote same-sex unions.
Au contraire, mon frere.
Jim,
Keep your immature, name-calling to yourself. We already know you lack class and character, so we no more proof.
You said:
"This is the point. No state interest exists for denying same-sex marriage. That's what the judge and every other judge has said."
But this didn't respond to the point I made at all. Your response ignores why the state takes an interest in marriage at all and presumes that interest is something ambiguous that can be applied to any union. It isn't a matter of interest in denying alternative compositions of unions, it's a matter of why it took an interest in hetero unions in the first place. Apparently, you either don't know what that interest is, or don't care to know in order to pretend same-sex unions are equally worthy. Hard to tell with you which is more likely to be the case.
No compelling state interest to ban same-sex fake marriage? How about health risks for the whole society?
http://barbwire.com/2014/05/12/studies-homosexuality-bad-health-many-ways/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/syphilis-rates-at-epidemic-proportions-among-vancouver-gay-bisexual-men
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/cdc-risk-of-hiv-150-times-greater-for-gay-men-than-for-heterosexual-men/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couples-less-healthy-than-married-heterosexuals-study-finds
http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/active-homosexuals-18-times-more-likely-to-contract-aids-but-homophobia-is
No compelling state interest to ban same-sex fake marriage? How about how it affects children?
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexual-couples-be-allowed-to-adopt.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gold-standard-studys-striking-findings-children-of-heterosexual-parents-hap
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-views-children-gay-lesbian-parents.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-story
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study
http://www.ruthblog.org/2013/01/05/study-finds-children-of-same-sex-couples-lag-in-school/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kids-need-both-mom-and-dad-says-gay-man-opposed-to-gay-marriage-89018/
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/02/26/when-you-find-out-you-married-your-sister-n1519841/page/full/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kids-need-a-mom-and-dad-says-openly-gay-adoptive-parent
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-terrible-injustice-of-same-sex-marriage-my-story
http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/gay-adoption-horror-duke
http://christiannews.net/2013/06/16/lesbian-mother-petitions-against-florida-middle-school-for-forcing-teen-son-to-remove-makeup/
http://theothermccain.com/2013/07/02/neutral-objective-incompetence-how-ginger-gorham-aided-pedophile-network/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-parenting-child-abuse
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/as_it_turns_out_it_does_make_a_difference.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/girls-with-lesbian-parents-45-less-likely-to-graduate-high-school
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-married-mom-and-dad-really-do-matter-new-evidence-from-canada
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/study-children-of-same-sex-couples-do-less-well-than-those-of-married-couples/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-study-traditional-two-parent-biological-family-the-safest-environment-f
The name calling, Marshall, is merely a response to your derisive name calling. You can dish it out but you can't take it, huh?
Apparently, you either don't know what that interest is
Tell me what you think it is and I'll be happy to shoot it down for you.
[You] don't care to know in order to pretend same-sex unions are equally worthy.
I don't have to pretend. They obviously are equally worthy. Every judge has said so and every defender of SSM bans has failed to refute that they are.
As far as health issues, almost all of them would be lessened if gays could be married.
As far as children's issues, most of these links are from the same site. Most of the conclusions are bogus or based on bogus or biased assumptions. Nonetheless. Nobody, as in NOBODY, has been able to convince any judge so far that any of these "interests" rise to meet the criteria necessary for the Constitution to allow denial of same-sex marriage. From the decision:
The Defendants (state of Idaho) offered no evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or the well-being of children. Without proof, the Defendants’ justifications echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation laws and rigid gender roles of days long past. Then as now, it is the duty of the courts to apply the law to the facts in evidence. Here, the facts are clear and the law teaches that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority can deny.
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html Assumes that a homosexual child is a bad thing. It's not. Calls people who disagree "pro-homosexuals". Stupid.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexual-couples-be-allowed-to-adopt.html Should you be allowed to adopt because you are in the military and might get killed?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gold-standard-studys-striking-findings-children-of-heterosexual-parents-hap This is the Regnerus study which he has since retracted.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-views-children-gay-lesbian-parents.html This study admits its uselessness in the first paragraph saying that there is insufficient data to draw any conclusions.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-story A useless story about the difficulties of living in an "unusual" house.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study Unfairly compares married hetero couples to unmarried gay couples.
http://www.ruthblog.org/2013/01/05/study-finds-children-of-same-sex-couples-lag-in-school/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kids-need-both-mom-and-dad-says-gay-man-opposed-to-gay-marriage-89018/
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/02/26/when-you-find-out-you-married-your-sister-n1519841/page/full/ You've got to be effing kidding me.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-parenting-child-abuse What a bunch of horse manure.
Blah blah blah
The idiot judge said there were no compelling reasons for the state to deny same-sex fake marriages, yet the judge found no compelling reasons for the sate to SANCTION same-sex fake marriage. More compelling reasons not to can be found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPgZ2Mq1Ugw
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/02/dr-morses-testimony-to-mn-senate-judiciary/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/a-secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage/
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexuals-be-allowed-to-marry-whom-they-love.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/2012/06/07/debating_samesex_marriage/page/full
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-a-welfare-program-not-a-right
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-and-social-change-exceeding-the-speed-of-thought
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2013/02/28/the-case-against-equality-n1521881/page/full
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2013/03/01/the-case-against-equality-part-2-n1523048/page/full
http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
I can provide more articles demonstrating the harm to society from sanctioning same-sex unions, let alone sanctioning homosexuality in general.
Jim,
The health issues would still be there; they are intrinsic to the homosexual lifestyle. Quit trying to pretend otherwise. Queers can have a committed relationship without the state calling it a “marriage.” They want “marriage” so as to destroy the institution, and to get whatever benefits they can - i.e., sucking from the gov’t trough while providing NOTHING of benefit to society.
The reason no one can convince the judges of the state interests is because the liberal judges don’t care - they have an agenda to promote and truth doesn’t enter into the equation.
There is overwhelming evidence that children do much better in every way by having a mother and a father - and not being part of a perverse union where they will never learn proper human sexuality.
Denying the truth and marginalizing the evidence. That’s all you homosexualists have going for you. What you really want is societal acceptance and sanction of perversion. You will never get it from intelligent and moral people.
yet the judge found no compelling reasons for the sate to SANCTION same-sex fake marriage
You apparently have the cognitive ability of a stone. The judge needs no compelling reason to allow a right. By definition, a right is a right unless there is a constitutional justification for denying it. If you and the rest of your small boulders think there is a reason for the state to deny this right, why has nobody successfully made one in any of these cases.
YouTube video is bulls**t. Same sex marriage provides every single benefit that the video says "traditional" marriage provides.
SSRN is an opinion piece by a philosopher a 2 poli-sci professors. Meh.
From the Heritage link: "Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children."
This can apply just as well to a same sex marriage.
From Ruthblog: "Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Redefining marriage affects the balance of power between the state and civil society."
Pure baloney.
Winterknight: Just more garbage. How can you make a comparison of longevity between married couples and non-married couples? The arguments here are stupid.
Stand to reason blog is the same old tired argument that gays are treated equally because they can legally marry as long as it is opposite sex. This is simple bulls**t.
Townhall: ""Marriage equality" as an idea means viewing traditional understanding of marriage as morally wicked and illegitimate -- "discriminatory" and "bigoted" and "hateful" in the lexicon of sexual liberalism." Seriously? This is the height of bulls**t.
I could go on and on for everyone of your meaningless links.
I can provide more articles demonstrating the harm to society from sanctioning same-sex unions, let alone sanctioning homosexuality in general.
None of them demonstrate harm. They only assert harm. Nobody believes them anymore. And for good reason.
Jim,
You apparently don’t understand what a right is. NO ONE has the right to redefine what marriage is. There is nothing in the Constitution which says people can make up rights - which is what the judge did. So no one is ever trying to deny anyone the right to marry - we are fighting a made up right to redefine what marriage is.
You are full of bull. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAME-SEX FAKE MARRIAGE PROVIDES FOR SOCIETY—— NOTHING!
You marginalize every article because it disagrees with your perverted belief system.
None of the statements about real marriage can apply to same-sex fake marriage. One is deluding themselves when they make the contrary claim.
And again you call it inequality just because queers are confined to the same rules as everyone else is when it comes to marriage.
So same-sex fake marriage will not be harmful to anyone? Are you living under a rock? Daily newspapers report people losing jobs, being fined, being sent for “re-education,” being sued, etc for nothing more than disagreeing with homosexuality and same-sex fake marriage. The Gaystapo will allow no disagreement. HARM is caused on a daily basis. Would you care for proof? I could give you dozens of links to dozens of cases of real rights begin violated because of homosexualists and their Gaystapo tactics.
You and your ilk are disgusting with your promotion and sanctioning of perversion.
"The name calling, Marshall, is merely a response to your derisive name calling."
Your response, little Jimmy, demonstrates that "little Jimmy" is very much appropriate. Thanks for validating my referencing you in that way. You're so helpful.
"Tell me what you think it is and I'll be happy to shoot it down for you."
You've now seen at least one argument for why the state takes interest in real marriages from the video Glenn posted that you don't understand. All you've done to "shoot it down" was to say that homosexuals provide the same benefits. Clearly they don't. They don't provide the next generation, which is the basis of state interest. But your side never provides evidence to prove this isn't so, or that it makes no difference. You merely assert.
"I don't have to pretend. They obviously are equally worthy."
Yet, you've never provided any explanation for how that worth is manifested. You, again, merely assert. You're basically arguing like a child (little Jimmy) by presuming worth must be assumed by the state on your word for it. That would be similar to you whining to your mommy that you deserve what the kid next door has simply because.
"Every judge has said so and every defender of SSM bans has failed to refute that they are."
I've read several decisions and rulings, JimBob. None of them do more than merely say that opponents are being mean to homosexuals for saying they see nothing in their unions to take interest as they do in real marriages. The opponents spend their argument time defending why the state takes interest in real marriages and why it doesn't in any other type or composition of union. The judges, like all other homosexual enablers, don't refute anything. They simply dismiss without argument. Saying, "They are, TOO, worthy." Isn't an argument. It's a judicial tantrum.
"As far as health issues, almost all of them would be lessened if gays could be married."
This is hilarious and the same lame argument that Dan Trabue likes to put forth. Somehow, that piece of paper from the courthouse reduces the likelihood of sexual diseases. It goes to a previous statement of mine that you hadn't the wit to rebut. I challenged you to explain why a marriage isn't a marriage without the state licensing it. Your response didn't address it at all. But apparently to homosexuals, and, evidently, you and Dan, if they cannot have a license from the state, they cannot refrain from unhealthy sexual practices, and they cannot remain committed to each other forsaking all others (I'm speaking of the small percentage of them that even care to).
No hetero couple who marries is any better if they take a vow to remain faithful and stay together and lacking a license fails to live up to that vow. But apparently, according to you and Dan and them, that's just not possible for them. Without that piece of paper from the state, their vows, their commitment to each other has absolutely no meaning at all! It's the license that does it!
And you want honorable people to take you seriously! To you, Dan and homosexuals, a marriage isn't really a marriage without the state licensing it. How sad and pathetic. Now it's clear you and homosexuals don't even deserve a license.
"Nobody, as in NOBODY, has been able to convince any judge...etc."
This is not compelling. Like you, these judges aren't failing to be convinced. They are failing to act honorably in recognizing the truth of the situation. What's more, as they've merely dismissed arguments from opponents rather than debate them at all, they show they have no intention of being open to being convinced. Their rulings are insipid and embarrassing.
"The judge needs no compelling reason to allow a right."
There is no "right" that is denied homosexuals. They can marry anyone they want. State sanctioning is not up to the judge to decide. It is up to the people to decide if they believe a behavior is worthy of promotion and encouragement. Why would the people, who is the state, promote that which provides for them no benefit? Where in the Constitution does it say that the state MUST promote ANY behavior at all, much less those that provide no benefit? When will these questions be answered? All that matters is that whatever the state decides, it applies equally to all. As the marriage has always been defined, it has always been equally open to anyone, regardless of orientation. If two heterosexual men wanted to marry, they couldn't either. There is no inequality. You, and the homosexual lobby, are liars.
NO ONE has the right to redefine what marriage is.
No body is redefining marriage. It's not necessary. But if it were, any state that recognizes it can define it.
They don't provide the next generation, which is the basis of state interest.
There is no same-sex marriage where one or the other partner is fertile that cannot provide the next generation.
By your logic, no infertile couple should be allowed to marry. No couple desiring to remain childless should be able to marry.
"No body is redefining marriage. It's not necessary. But if it were, any state that recognizes it can define it."
Let's break this idiocy down:
No body is redefining marriage.
Obviously this stupidly deceitful. "Stupidly" because it is so obviously a lie. The homosexual lobby and their enablers are indeed redefining what "marriage" mean, how it is defined. Find a dictionary older than 50 years old and see how it defines the word. Something akin to "a union between a man and a woman" will be described. All the laws and legal decisions of the past to which activists point, such as Loving v Virginia, are based on that definition. There are none that regards marriage in any other way.
Now, homosexuals and their enablers, including those deciding cases from the bench, are pretending marriage is defined as a union of two people. This is a blatant lie and you all know it.
It's not necessary.
This is obviously stupid considering that's what all the lawsuits and constitutional challenges have been about. All the states in the union at one time knew, and even homosexuals didn't disagree, that the definition of marriage was one man/one woman. But they began to argue in court that they have the right to marry (as if that was ever denied them) and judges have overturned hundreds of years of understanding to redefine the word.
But if it were, any state that recognizes it can define it.
As far as I am aware, only one state actually put it on the ballot. All other states had the will of the people overturned. Thus, only one state (as far as I am aware) redefined it. All others were forced to by the courts or state legislators bowing to the homosexual lobby based on all the false arguments they put forth. Thus, most of the states that now have legalized SSM preferred to define it as it should be, but could not define it that way due to homo activism that infected their courts or legislatures.
"There is no same-sex marriage where one or the other partner is fertile that cannot provide the next generation."
Amazing how anti-science and anti-truth the pro-homosexual lobby and enablers are. BOTH partners in a homosex union can be fertile and they'll NEVER provide the next generation. It is biologically impossible. What occurs is that one of them unites with an outside person of the opposite sex and the two of THEM provide the next generation. And little Jimmy dares condescend to anyone!
"By your logic, no infertile couple should be allowed to marry. No couple desiring to remain childless should be able to marry."
Equally amazing is that someone who views himself as having better cognitive ability than a stone would embarrass himself with this level of stupidity. State interest in the hetero union isn't dependent upon procreation. It stems from the likelihood that only one particular TYPE of union can engage in sexual intercourse and possibly produce offspring. Producing offspring isn't required. Never was. But even in the case of the couple who chooses not to procreate, their union still stands as an example of the TYPE of union in which the state takes interest, even if they never change their minds, or even if they never accidentally conceive. Jim and other activists and enablers really need to give up this insipid excuse for an argument.
With Jim's - and his ilk - idea of marriage, any union of any sort of people - or even people and something else - can be called "marriage."
If there is no compelling state interest to prevent two queers from marrying each other, then there is no compelling interest to prevent incestuous marriages, polygamous or polyandrous marriages, or even marriages between people and animals. No compelling interest that couldn't also be applied to two people of the same sex. NONE of them benefit society.
Glenn,
I had to delete your comment because I also deleted mine and yours wouldn't make sense without it. I also deleted little Jimmy's response to it for the same reason. My purpose was to reprint what little Jimmy posted before my request to you, because he, being the petulant little Jimmy he is, insists on using grade school obscenity, and I thought redaction was in order. So, anywhere you see this (X), you'll know that's where little Jimmy was acting like a small child again. He started doing this because I call him "little Jimmy", but his arguments are childish. He then doubled down on his childishness with childish name-calling. So...
Blogger Jim said...
Wikipedia: Marriage
Meriam-Webster: Marriage
Dictionary.com:
"(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:, Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times."
This is obviously stupid considering that's what all the lawsuits and constitutional challenges have been about.
No, they've been about who is eligible to have their marriage recognized by the government.
BOTH partners in a homosex union can be fertile and they'll NEVER provide the next generation.
This is about the stupidest argument of any that you and Glenn have, (X). It's so obviously untrue, it's comical.
According to the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy:
"Studies estimate that between 1 and 9 million children in the United States have at least one parent who is lesbian or gay. There are approximately 594,000 same-sex partner households, according to the 2000 Census, and there are children living in approximately 27 percent of those households." That's 160,000 families with a gay parent.
Where the hell do you think these children came from?
They can marry anyone they want....All that matters is that whatever the state decides, it applies equally to all....If two heterosexual men wanted to marry, they couldn't either. There is no inequality.
Wait! "They can marry anyone they want", but "they couldn't either". Huh?
State interest in the hetero union isn't dependent upon procreation.
But (X), you said above...
They don't provide the next generation, which is the basis of state interest.
Glenn wrote:
With Jim's - and his ilk - idea of marriage, any union of any sort of people - or even people and something else - can be called "marriage."
Not legally. I apparently need to repeat this because either you can't or you won't comprehend it. The right to marry is recognized as a basic right according to law and can only be denied if there is a compelling state interest in denying that right. Any existing or proposed denial of this right must pass legal review in order to be Constitutional. Bans on same-sex marriage are not passing this review. Others have either passed review or have not come to the court.
If there is no compelling state interest to prevent two queers from marrying each other, then there is no compelling interest to prevent incestuous marriages, polygamous or polyandrous marriages, or even marriages between people and animals.
That's nearly as dopey as (X) claim that gay couples can't provide the next generation. There are compelling state interests in denying those marriage rights and nobody has ever successfully challenged that.
To begin with, Jim listed three links which I didn't feel were necessary to re-post as hyperlinks. Each provided RECENT re-definitions for the word "marriage" after I specifically encouraged little Jimmy to find a dictionary older than 50 years old that listed a definition other than one man/one woman. Somehow, childishly ignoring that encouragement and believing doing the opposite is a real rebuttal in his morally corrupted mind.
Now, to further correct his confusion:
"No, they've been about who is eligible to have their marriage recognized by the government."
No, they've been about redefining the word "marriage" in order to have their unions recognized by the state as marriages.
I'll concede this much, however. They may not be saying the words, "We intend to redefine the word 'marriage'", but their insistence upon labeling their unions "marriages" requires the term be redefined to mean something it never before did in the history of mankind, and certainly never before in the United States of America prior to Massachusetts.
"Where the hell do you think these children came from?"
Well, ya see, little Jimmy, I'd like to give you the whole "birds and the bees" routine, but ask your mommy for the details. For now, just know that each of those 1-9 million kids with at least one homosexual parent was the result of a sexual union between one man and one woman. THAT'S where those children came from.
"Wait! "They can marry anyone they want", but "they couldn't either". Huh?"
Clearly I failed to spell it out completely to avoid your childish and deceitful pretense of confusion when it's been spelled out so clearly so many times in the past. I was referring to equal application of the laws. Those laws had a list of criteria by which applicants for licenses must meet in order to qualify for that license. As the laws were equally applied, and that list of criteria did NOT include "orientation", homosexuals could marry anyone they wanted. If in doing so their union met the established requirements, they'd qualify for licensing. But if not, they couldn't. It was applied equally to all. An example being that two heterosexual men couldn't get a license to sanction their union, either. This has been explained for your feeble mind so many times that to pretend you did not understand the reference is simply lying.
"State interest in the hetero union isn't dependent upon procreation.
But (X), you said above...
They don't provide the next generation, which is the basis of state interest."
There is no inconsistency here unless you are once again pretending to see what doesn't exist in a desperate attempt to appear as if you've found a flaw in my position. State recognition of a hetero marriage is not dependent upon whether or not a given hetero marriage will or can procreate. But that the typical hetero union is likely to procreate is the basis for state interest.
"The right to marry is recognized as a basic right according to law..."
This is a bastardization of past judicial opinions deceitfully put forth as precedent by current immorally corrupt judges and justices. Never until recently has "marriage" been understood to be anything other than the union of one man and one woman and all past decisions did not require that this true definition be stated for the country to understand what was being said. For example, if someone says that you're a horse's ass, that person would not have to define the term for the listeners in order for them to understand that person didn't mean you were literally a horse's ass. There's a common understanding of the term that makes such explanations unnecessary. The same had been true for the term marriage. No one needed to be reminded that it referred to one man/one woman, especially when the word was used legally.
"...and can only be denied if there is a compelling state interest in denying that right."
This too is a corruption. The state found a compelling reason to take interest in unions of men and women. It didn't just decide to license marriages for the hell of it. The state decided that it saw a benefit in encouraging lasting intimate unions of men and women because of the likelihood of procreation. If the state sees no comparable reason to take interest in any other union, as it obviously never did, it doesn't need a compelling reason to deny homosexuals. No compelling reason for taking interest in their unions exist.
"There are compelling state interests in denying those marriage rights and nobody has ever successfully challenged that."
Such as...
Once again I must redact little Jimmy's post due to his childishness. His immaturity will be replaced with what it really means (I can't compete w/MA).
-------------------------------
I specifically encouraged little Jimmy to find a dictionary older than 50 years old that listed a definition other than one man/one woman.
And I'll encourage (I can't compete w?MA) to find a dictionary older than 50 years that says a telephone takes pictures, communicates by email (what's that?), sends text and pictures, and browses the Internet (what is that?). For millenia, non-verbal communication meant ink and paper or stone tablets. Somewhere along the way the meaning of "a letter" has been redefined.
For now, just know that each of those 1-9 million kids with at least one homosexual parent was the result of a sexual union between one man and one woman.
So you think artificial insemination is a sexual union? Check with your mom, (I can't compete w/MA).
An example being that two heterosexual men couldn't get a license to sanction their union, either.
And they would want to why?
State recognition of a hetero marriage is not dependent upon whether or not a given hetero marriage will or can procreate. But that the typical hetero union is likely to procreate is the basis for state interest.
I think this is called "word salad".
The same had been true for the term marriage. No one needed to be reminded that it referred to one man/one woman, especially when the word was used legally.
Not anymore.
The state found a compelling reason to take interest in unions of men and women.
I'd be interested to read any link to actual legislation older than 50 years that says anything about states' interest in unions ONLY of men and women.
It didn't just decide to license marriages for the hell of it.
It didn't? Can you provide actual legislation that says the state is licensing marriage because it has a compelling need to do so?
The state decided that it saw a benefit in encouraging lasting intimate unions of men and women because of the likelihood of procreation.
Clearly procreation is just as likely without a state license.
it doesn't need a compelling reason to deny homosexuals.
Of course it does. If someone wishes to claim a right, that right must be granted unless it can be shown that they shouldn't have it. The onus is on the state, not those demanding the right.
"I find same sex marriage is yucky, immoral according to my interpretation of the Bible, and hasn't been allowed for millenia" are not valid reasons to deny same sex marriage. And the courts have spake thusly.
Such as...
It doesn't matter. The states believe there are. If someone wishes to challenge the state, more power to them. I think they'll lose. On the other hand, state after state has been challenged to present a compelling reason to deny same sex marriage and state after stated has failed.
"And I'll encourage (I can't compete w?MA) to find a dictionary older than 50 years that says a telephone takes pictures, communicates by email (what's that?), sends text and pictures, and browses the Internet (what is that?). For millenia, non-verbal communication meant ink and paper or stone tablets. Somewhere along the way the meaning of "a letter" has been redefined."
Nice try. I've never heard anyone refer to an email as "a letter" even if they accomplish the same thing. I think you mean "communicate" which has never had one specific definition, as there had always been multiple means of communication.
"So you think artificial insemination is a sexual union?"
Perhaps not "sexual" literally, but without a doubt the union of one man and one woman, which is the point. Both are needed for the component parts of the artificial process.
"And they would want to why?"
Irrelevant. The point is they are not licensed due to failing to meet the criteria, not due to their orientation. Equal application of the law. No Constitutional problem.
"I think this is called "word salad"."
No. It's called "the reality of the situation". Your inability to see it is called, "intellectual incompetence". Possibly incurable in your case.
"Not anymore."
Thanks to the incessant lies and whining of the morally corrupt, like yourself.
"I'd be interested to read any link to actual legislation older than 50 years that says anything about states' interest in unions ONLY of men and women."
What an idiot. Read any law, legislation or regulation regarding how to obtain a marriage license.
"It didn't? Can you provide actual legislation that says the state is licensing marriage because it has a compelling need to do so?"
This is abject stupidity and demonstrates that you have no interest in understanding why the state involves itself in marriage at all. The info is available if you only possessed the honorable character necessary to learn and thus live according to the truth. What's more, legislation doesn't necessarily contain the reasoning for the law within the wording of the law itself. Try some honesty for a change.
"Clearly procreation is just as likely without a state license."
Clearly you're an idiot for pretending this canard hasn't been addressed before, and likely in this very post.
"If someone wishes to claim a right, that right must be granted unless it can be shown that they shouldn't have it."
Not true at all. I could pretend I'm little Jimmy and demand that you produce legislation that supports the notion, but one child in the discussion is enough. Instead, I'll simply say that there is no "right" to force the state, that is, the people of a state, to recognize homosexual unions as equally worthy of the people's interest as real marriages.
""I find same sex marriage is yucky, immoral according to my interpretation of the Bible, and hasn't been allowed for millenia" are not valid reasons to deny same sex marriage. And the courts have spake thusly."
More idiocy. No one has ever used this argument in any case regarding marriage.
"It doesn't matter. The states believe there are."
It does indeed matter because the same lame arguments used by homosexuals in pretending their unions are every bit as worthy of state recognition as real marriages works equally well for ANY alternate form of "marriage". In every case where the state has lost its bid to maintain the real definition of marriage in law, the logical, rational, science and stat based arguments for doing so have been ignored as irrelevant to the unsupported claims of the homosexual lobby.
I think you mean "communicate"
No, I mean written communication, as in a letter or note.
Both are needed for the component parts of the artificial process.
So? Both a man and a woman are required to produce a child by artificial insemination. One member of that occurrence is not the spouse of either of the couple. Yet it is the legal child of the heterosexual couple. What makes that child different from the child of a similar same-sex arrangement?
The point is they are not licensed due to failing to meet the criteria
They would be in 17 states and DC.
No one has ever used this argument in any case regarding marriage.
This is YOUR argument.
Let's try a thought experiment:
There is no such thing as a legal marriage. There never was. Your state has decided to create a law that says two people can get married and enjoy certain benefits. There is no history of marriage. It never existed before this law was passed.
You are a county clerk. Before you stand an opposite sex couple with no children and a same-sex couple with two children. The childless couple may or may not be able to have children or choose to have children in the future. You don't know how the couple got their children but they are legally the children of the couple.
Both couples want to get married legally according to this new law so they can enjoy the benefits of marriage. Why would you give a license to one couple and not the other?
Jim,
"No, I mean written communication, as in a letter or note."
If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said, rather than to say that the meaning of "letter" has changed. But I've already covered "communicate", and "communication" is of the same root. Your analogy was crap and you must sit in it.
"One member of that occurrence is not the spouse of either of the couple."
No kidding?
"Yet it is the legal child of the heterosexual couple."
I've mentioned on more than one occasion over the years that I do not believe in artificial insemination (though I would have no problem if the component parts each come from each partner of a marital union and multiple fertilized eggs are not the result of the process), so this hypothetical doesn't strengthen your position in the least. However...
"What makes that child different from the child of a similar same-sex arrangement?"
Despite the above mentioned concerns about the process and source of the component parts, the child of your hypothetical has both a mother and a father, as God and nature intended, and has so much research suggested is best for the child.
"They would be in 17 states and DC."
Where the morally corrupt has ignored the will of the people in favor of the sexually confused and dysfunctional. Only an idiot would see that as a good thing.
"This is YOUR argument."
You're an idiot. This is what you said:
""I find same sex marriage is yucky, immoral according to my interpretation of the Bible, and hasn't been allowed for millenia" are not valid reasons to deny same sex marriage."
I've never argued on the "yuckiness" of homosexual behavior. I don't know many homosexual couples. I know far more hetero couples. I find no appeal in the thought of most of them having sex, but I have no problem with them doing so, as they are all normal unions of one man and one woman. Thus, I would not deny them based on how unappealing the thought of their sexual intimacy might be, and I don't use "yucky" as a reason to deny the baseless demands of homosexuals.
Homosexual behavior is not immoral based on myinterpretation of Scripture. There is no ambiguity on the subject in Scripture. And while that is among personal reasons why I don't believe SSM is worthy of support, it isn't a reason I use in debates on whether our laws should recognize it. So, it too is not a reason I put forth except in discussions with other Christians debating from a Scriptural perspective.
I also have never argued that it has never been allowed for millennia. It has been in isolated cases in history, mostly by despotic leaders who reserved the right for themselves and their perverted friends. My argument is that the definition of marriage has always been one man/one woman and marriage is the term applied to that union.
continued...
Jim,
As to your self-serving "thought experiment". It would require that I have the same difficulty thinking from which you suffer to dare consider it even a poor analogy of reality. But let's take a look:
"There is no such thing as a legal marriage. There never was. Your state has decided to create a law that says two people can get married and enjoy certain benefits. There is no history of marriage. It never existed before this law was passed."
Right away you have a problem. Why would the state create this law in the first place? Just because? Even in my stupid state of Illinois they I can't think of any law being created without a reason, and that's considering how much money they throw around stupidly. Illinois has stupid reasons, but it has reasons.
"...a same-sex couple with two children...You don't know how the couple got their children but they are legally the children of the couple."
If there had been no marriage, on what basis can any two people "legally" have children? What connection, without marriage, is there legally between any child and any adult? Since your fantasy doesn't rely on logic, can these homosexuals fly or pass through walls as if through fog?
"Both couples want to get married legally according to this new law so they can enjoy the benefits of marriage. Why would you give a license to one couple and not the other?"
First of all, as you obviously intend that in your fantasy world the term marriage simply means the union of any two people, then the presence of children by either couple is superfluous and irrelevant to ultimate question.
Secondly, as you obviously intend that in your fantasy world the term marriage simply means the union of any two people, and the law was created for no rational reason that you've described, I, as county clerk, would not deny either couple a license.
Too bad it doesn't work like that in the real world, though you morally bankrupt intend that it will.
I do not believe in artificial insemination
Believe it. It happens.
the child of your hypothetical has both a mother and a father
So the child of the same-sex couple is less worthy of the protections of marital law?
There is no ambiguity on the subject in Scripture.
It may come as a surprise to you that not everyone subscribes to your Scripture.
Why would the state create this law in the first place? Just because?
To codify relationships for such things as health care decisions, estate succession, child custody, etc.
If there had been no marriage, on what basis can any two people "legally" have children?
If someone has a baby, is it not legally theirs?
then the presence of children by either couple is superfluous and irrelevant to ultimate question.
As it is today.
you morally bankrupt intend that it will.
It's not a matter of intention. It's a matter of inevitability.
Jim,
"Believe it. It happens."
I know you like to believe you're shredding my arguments with witty retorts like these, but they don't really address the point. I'm well aware it happens. I didn't say I didn't believe it happens.
"So the child of the same-sex couple is less worthy of the protections of marital law?"
You were comparing two couples. One hetero and the other homo, both seeking a child through artificial means. You asked, what's different about the children produced. I answered by pointing out the salient difference. Now, you want to consider the homosexuals, who did what they shouldn't have done (purposely have a child conceived to purposely deprive it of both a father and mother), and having done so, demand the same considerations now that the innocent child is on the line. And that seems honorable to you. That's the actions of decent human beings. I gotta tell you: I'm not surprised.
"It may come as a surprise to you that not everyone subscribes to your Scripture."
Once again, Jim, you change the subject and pretend you've destroyed an argument. You alleged that I base my position of morality on MY interpretation of Scripture. I responded that Scripture is NOT ambiguous on the immorality of homosexual behavior. That fact is not mitigated by how many people believe in God. So your response is stupid. Again, not surprised.
What makes it even more stupid is the fact that I had just stated that I do not depend upon Scripture to argue against the homosexual agenda, except with others who claim to be Christian and support the agenda at the same time.
"To codify relationships for such things as health care decisions, estate succession, child custody, etc."
Now you're just making shit up. None of those things were involved with the purpose of licensing marriages.
"If someone has a baby, is it not legally theirs?"
Biologically for sure. But legally? I really don't know. Keep in mind, you're speaking of a case where there is no marriage law or licensing. Don't now move back to how things actually are in the real world, where you're not so certain anyway. In the real world, we have birth certificates. I don't know about your fantasy world where you've set things up just the way you have to have things be in order to make your point.
"then the presence of children by either couple is superfluous and irrelevant to ultimate question.
As it is today."
You are comparing your fantasy world, where you've set things up just the way you have to have things be in order to make your point, and try to compare it to the real world? That's intellectually dishonest and illogical. Note the full statement of mine that you could not honestly reprint in order to get away with your idiotic response:
First of all, as you obviously intend that in your fantasy world the term marriage simply means the union of any two people, then the presence of children by either couple is superfluous and irrelevant to ultimate question.
So it isn't true that it is that way today in the real world EXCEPT where morally bankrupt activists and judges overrode the will of the people to redefine marriage to mean "the union of any two people" which is not the true definition.
"It's not a matter of intention. It's a matter of inevitability."
Because of you morally bankrupt and corrupted people who intend the immorality be codified into law.
(purposely have a child conceived to purposely deprive it of both a father and mother
Who's the idiot? No same-sex couple has children to purposely deprive it of both a father and mother.
demand the same considerations now that the innocent child is on the line.
So you would deprive those innocent children of the legal protections of parents whose marriage is recognized by the government?
I responded that Scripture is NOT ambiguous on the immorality of homosexual behavior.
And the Constitution is NOT ambiguous that Scripture doesn't matter in this issue.
None of those things were involved with the purpose of licensing marriages.
Again, who's the idiot?
From the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog:
"The state, of course, does have an interest in regulating marriage. It has an interest in providing a legal underpinning to the building blocks of our society, the nuclear family, so money can be distributed properly following a spouse’s death. It also has an interest in the welfare of children, and therefore finds benefit in bestowing a special status upon an institution that provides a child, in theory at least, with not one but two caregivers."
As of today add Oregon. Now 18 plus DC.
Jim,
The least you could have done is to provide the link to that exact piece from WSJ. From here, it appears as if the quote supports my side of the issue, as "nuclear family" refers to the father/mother/child dynamic. But inheritance can be dealt with via wills and trusts and marital relation is not required. Thus, the interest the state has in involving itself with marriage went beyond such things.
At the same time, it speaks of two "caregivers" as opposed to one. But if the composition of those two caregivers does not require one of each gender, then that suggests merely that two is better than one. If that is true, why not three or four caregivers, or five or six?
Obviously you're reading an opinion, but not a piece of legislation or the actual arguments made in support of licensing marriages. As with judicial decisions, you look to others to decide what is right or wrong. You haven't the moral integrity to reason it out or argue in defense of your indefensible position. Still again, I'm not the least bit surprised.
"Who's the idiot? No same-sex couple has children to purposely deprive it of both a father and mother."
To your question, the answer is plainly and clearly, YOU. Every same sex couple who has children, either by virtue of one of them having divorced an opposite sex spouse with whom they conceived the child, or via artificial means, intends on purpose to deprive the child of either a mother or father. That is the result of acting based on satisfying their desires over what's best for the child. Save your semantic games for Dan Trabue.
"So you would deprive those innocent children of the legal protections of parents whose marriage is recognized by the government?"
Again, you insist on putting the child in that position in order to force compliance on the grounds that the child will suffer. That makes you and the homosexuals who do such a thing incredible assholes. Thus, it would not be me who would be doing the depriving, but the homosexuals who cared more about their depravity being elevated to moral status than the welfare of the child they dared drag into their sordid lives.
"And the Constitution is NOT ambiguous that Scripture doesn't matter in this issue."
Pretty damned irrelevant given that I do not use religious arguments in countering the homosexual agenda's legal actions, nor was I making one. No, little Jimmy. I was insisting I was not making a religious argument.
"Again, who's the idiot?"
Again, as always, it is and will ever be...YOU.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/14/why-do-we-need-to-ask-the-state-for-permission-to-get-married-anyway/
"nuclear family" refers to the father/mother/child dynamic.
No, it refers to a family group consisting of a pair of adults and their children.
But inheritance can be dealt with via wills and trusts and marital relation is not required.
Marriage makes it automatic without expensive legal contracts.
the interest the state has in involving itself with marriage went beyond such things.
Like what?
If that is true, why not three or four caregivers, or five or six?
Why not?
the actual arguments made in support of licensing marriages.
Show me the legislation that makes different arguments?
As with judicial decisions, you look to others to decide what is right or wrong.
No, I know what is right and wrong.
That is the result of acting based on satisfying their desires
Sex Nazi: "No sex for YOU!"
Pretty damned irrelevant given that I do not use religious arguments in countering the homosexual agenda's legal actions
You used the Scripture 5 times in this thread so far.
Read your link. No citations, no studies linked, only an "expert's" opinion. My opinion is far superior and is based on more substance that she offered. Please don't waste my time with such.
"No, it refers to a family group consisting of a pair of adults and their children."
Only when bastardized by the same self-serving morally bankrupt people who are bastardizing the words "marriage" and "family". "Nuclear" in the term, refers to "nucleus" as in the biological family unit being the nucleus for civilization. Check the etymology. And while you're at it, do the same for "marriage". You'll see that the word was used to describe the union of one man and one woman specifically. It's what that union had always been called. It didn't apply to any other union, except metaphorically.
"Marriage makes it automatic without expensive legal contracts."
Yeah. Sure. Because if there's one thing we know for sure, it's that lawyers want to make things as inexpensive as possible because they're all so altruistic. That's a good one, Jimbo.
"the interest the state has in involving itself with marriage went beyond such things.
Like what?"
Is little Jimmy's attention span so short that he forgot again why the state took an interest in marriage?
"If that is true, why not three or four caregivers, or five or six?
Why not?"
Then as our side has argued, the word "marriage" no longer has meaning because depraved people like yourself are willing to apply the word to any organization of whatever. Yeah. THAT won't harm a thing.
"Show me the legislation that makes different arguments?"
I've shown all the arguments that speak to the intentions behind licensing marriages. I've shown the meaning of the word as it has always been understood throughout the ages and that it, despite the weak-sauce attempts to pretend otherwise, never meant anything else. And while, coincidentally, I'm in the process of researching that very request, I think it's way past time that you, on behalf of all the other morally corrupt destroyers of the culture, provide an actual cogent and coherent counter argument. "Equality" is bullshit and homos have never been denied the right to form their own unions. I'm looking for an actual argument for a change. (Not that I'm expecting you can provide one.)
"As with judicial decisions, you look to others to decide what is right or wrong.
No, I know what is right and wrong."
That's funny. You think abortion is OK because it's legal. You think SSM is OK because more state have legalized it. You can't explain why you think it's OK. You simply point to judges' opinions and rulings and what the law says, as if legal equates to moral. You reject the teachings of the faith to which you claim to believe and you want to insist you know right from wrong? That's TOO funny!
"Sex Nazi: "No sex for YOU!""
Like I said, TOO funny that you pretend to understand right from wrong.
"You used the Scripture 5 times in this thread so far."
You see, if you truly understood right from wrong, you wouldn't accuse me of referencing Scripture as if I brought it up, when in fact I was only responding to your idiotic charge regarding what you claimed was MY interpretation of what Scripture teaches on the subject. So if you made 100 additional false suggestions about my religious beliefs, my correcting your stupidity would not constitute the use of religious arguments in countering the homo agenda's legal actions.
Pennsylvania! Now 19 + DC.
You are losing.
From today's decision:
"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history"
You really should read all of it.
certain citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are notguaranteed the right to marry the person they love.
What a crock. What about brothers who love their sisters? What about daughters who love their fathers, or sons who love their mothers? The very same rational these leftist, perverse and corrupt judges use to justify queers marrying would also justify incest. It also justifies polygamy and polyandry. There is no end in sight to the debauchery that evil judges like this are bringing to the USA.
That's a good one, Jimbo.
The expense of legal contracts is cited in today's PA ruling. It IS a good one.
TP said: Is little Jimmy's attention span so short that he forgot again why the state took an interest in marriage?
From today's PA opinion:
"In terms of state interests served by Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws, Defendants advance the following: the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children, tradition, and economic protection of Pennsylvania businesses. Defendants appear to defend only the first two aims, stating that numerous federal and state courts have agreed that responsible procreation and child-rearing are legitimate state interests and providing extensive authority for that proposition. Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are“legitimate,” advancing no argument that the interests are “important” state interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny."
"Equality" is bullshit and homos have never been denied the right to form their own unions.
From today's PA decision:
"Recognizing that '[h]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry,' we specifically hold that the fundamental right to marry as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution encompasses the right to marry a person of one’s own sex."
You think abortion is OK because it's legal.
No I think abortion is OK because it's none of your business unless you are thinking of having one. It's legal because it's none of your business.
You can't explain why you think it's OK.
Like all these judges, I don't have to explain why I think it's OK. I just have to decide that the arguments against it don't hold up.
You reject the teachings of the faith to which you claim to believe and you want to insist you know right from wrong?
I've been a member of my church for 14 years and not one single time have the words "abortion" or "same-sex marriage" come up.
The very same rational these leftist, perverse and corrupt judges use to justify queers marrying would also justify incest.
The judge in today's PA case was appointed by George W. Bush.
You are, what is it you always say? Unteachable.
The judges say that marriage is a fundamental right. They do not say that that right is unlimited. However, they say that limitations must pass certain legal tests to be Constitutional. Same-sex marriage bans do not pass these tests. Read the opinion.
This does not mean that no ban will ever again pass the test of Constitutionality. Let somebody challenge a different ban. I doubt that any challenge will succeed. These rulings in no way set a precedent for any other type of relationship since each presents its own unique circumstances.
The opinion is stupid.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people have a right to redefine what marriage is and then complain they can't be legally married.
The judge is an ass, and you are the one who is unteachable. You have swallowed the liberal homosexualist agenda hook, line and sinker.
It doesn't matter who put the judge there - he's still a leftist who overthrows the will of the people and legislates from the bench.
Just remember, it was judges in Nazi Germany who helped make Jews sub-human.
"Pennsylvania! Now 19 + DC.
You are losing."
I'm not losing, little Jimmy. The United States of America is losing. We've been losing since the free-love era of the 60's. We've been losing since no-fault divorce. We've been losing with each bit of loosening of cultural morals regarding human sexuality. And you're responsible by your complicity on every level because you either don't know right from wrong, or don't care. Either is likely.
"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history"
I know this is supposed to sound profound, and I'm sure it does to logic/common sense deprived sheep like you, but it is vapid. We are NOT a better people for believing that laws should be altered to satisfy sexual self-gratification. The laws this judicial half-wit overturned represented logic and commonsense at the very least, and a desire to preserve what marriage was always meant to be. But you lack the intellect to comprehend what is so obvious.
"The expense of legal contracts is cited in today's PA ruling. It IS a good one."
If it was cited in the ruling, it again demonstrates the stupidity and deceitfulness of Jones. First, it shows that one can protect one's self without destroying thousands of years of tradition and understanding that has served humanity well when properly followed. Secondly, it pretends there aren't other people who would also benefit by having those costs diminished by stupid judicial rulings. If cost is an issue, then those costs can be addressed in their proper context. The cost of legal contracts as an excuse to destroy the culture is just the type of argument I'd expect an idiot like you to find agreeable, because you lack the capacity to understand right and wrong, or live life according to the truth about either, relying on rulings such as this to justify doing wrong. Pathetic.
Gotta go. I'll address the rest of little Jimmy's wonton immorality and stupidity later. Stay tuned.
Jim,
Still proving what an ass you are.
The judge's decision shows that he is an ass. I read it, and it is fallacious and liberal claptrap lies.
We don't think queers are sub-human, we just think they practice perverse sex. We also don't like being forced to sanction it, we don't like the government sanctioning it and then punishing us for refusing to sanction perversion.
As Marshall pointed out, the USA is losing. You don't thumb your nose at God without consequences.
you either don't know right from wrong, or don't care
Love is right. Hate is wrong. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
We are NOT a better people for believing that laws should be altered to satisfy sexual self-gratification.
Laws need not be altered. They shouldn't exist if they deprive people of basic human rights, privacy, dignity, and the pursuit of happiness without a justifiable reason.
The laws this judicial half-wit overturned represented logic and commonsense at the very least
Where is the logic and common sense in these laws? You clearly didn't read the opinion since the judge shredded every word of the supposed "logic and common sense" in them.
destroying thousands of years of tradition
Are there any moral-thinking judges left in this country?
Didn't read the opinion, did ya?
If cost is an issue, then those costs can be addressed in their proper context.
Didn't read the opinion, did ya? The judge did just that.
I'll address the rest of little Jimmy's wonton immorality and stupidity later. Stay tuned.
Oh, I sure hope so. You and Glenn are SO entertaining!
Love is right. Hate is wrong. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Love doesn't enable people in their sin and debauchery. It isn't hate to tell the truth about sexual perversion.
"Defendants claim only that the objectives are“legitimate,” advancing no argument that the interests are “important” state interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny.""
This is incredibly stupid for a "learned" jurist to say. Such equivocating! Such semantic gamesmanship! Obviously, if an objective is legitimate, it is also important. It's a legitimate objective because it's important.
"...we specifically hold that the fundamental right to marry as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution encompasses the right to marry a person of one’s own sex.""
What he's doing here is simply rejecting history and tradition and selfishly asserting that there exists a right to marry a same-sex partner. He doesn't argue why that is proper because he isn't arguing against what is being defended, which is the right for the state to decide which unions are worthy of state encouragement through licensing. It's pathetically deceitful or outrageously idiotic.
"No I think abortion is OK because it's none of your business unless you are thinking of having one."
So if your neighbor murders his ten year old child, that's none of your business. Not surprised from such a morally corrupt fraud as yourself.
"It's legal because it's none of your business."
No. It's legal because another idiot justice pretends he can't see that life begins at conception and morally bankrupt people like yourself, for whom sex trumps life, are just as deceitful in suggesting that they can't see it, either.
"Like all these judges, I don't have to explain why I think it's OK. I just have to decide that the arguments against it don't hold up."
Spoken like one with no sense of right and wrong and less ability to put forth an argument for the selfish point of view he imposes on his neighbors. A legitimate citizen who cares about anything argues against that which he opposes by demonstrating why the opposing arguments don't hold up. Such a person doesn't merely decide they don't. You truly are pathetic and a reason this country is on the downward spiral it is. Incredible.
"I've been a member of my church for 14 years and not one single time have the words "abortion" or "same-sex marriage" come up."
Two suggestions:
1. Stay awake.
2. Find yourself a pair of testicles and bring it up yourself. Of course, that's probably pointless since you wouldn't understand if your pastor knows his stuff.
More coming...
This is incredibly stupid for a "learned" jurist to say.
It might seem so to someone who does not know the law and that there are specific legal meanings for these terms which are important to deciding what level of review a law must pass to be Constitutional. If you had read the opinion you might have gained a bit of understanding of the law.
What he's doing here is simply rejecting history and tradition and selfishly asserting
"Selfishly"? What do suppose would be his "selfish" motive in deciding this case as he did?
he isn't arguing against what is being defended, which is the right for the state to decide which unions are worthy of state encouragement through licensing.
Really? Where is that right enumerated?
Nowhere in the case does the defense make that argument.
So if your neighbor murders his ten year old child, that's none of your business.
Of course that's my business. But if his wife terminates a pregnancy, that's for sure none of my business.
A legitimate citizen who cares about anything argues against that which he opposes by demonstrating why the opposing arguments don't hold up.
Exactly. And the PA judge did that for me. Read his opinion. All my arguments opposing the same-sex marriage ban are in it. That's why I suggested you read it.
Of course, that's probably pointless since you wouldn't understand if your pastor knows his stuff.
I know that he knows the difference between "legitimate" and "important".
"It might seem so to someone who does not know the law and that there are specific legal meanings for these terms which are important to deciding what level of review a law must pass to be Constitutional."
Like you're a lawyer. And if you are, send me your card so I can warn off potential clients.
You think you earn points by presuming I share you inability to understand logic and to recognize a bullshit ruling when I see one. And just to be sure, because unlike yourself I like to make sure I know whereof I speak, I found in several online legal dictionaries that the word "important" isn't listed. And for "legitimate" I found "legal, proper, real" or "to make lawful". So my previous point stands, that the objective was important because it was legitimate. YOU counter with highly intellectual argument, "You don't know what you're talking about!" Well done.
BTW, I read the opinion twice. Not deep. But then, neither are you.
""Selfishly"? What do suppose would be his "selfish" motive in deciding this case as he did?"
Like yourself, it would start with having his personal morally corrupt belief codified. This is substantiated by not rebutting any defense argument he mentions in his ruling.
"Really? Where is that right enumerated?"
Right next to the right to pretend you and your homosexual partner can actually be married. Are you freakin' kidding? Your side constantly whines that no one has the right to force their morality upon you, but you demand an entire state bend over for yours. Which is it, Jim? Can people decide for themselves or not? The answer is "HELL no! Not if you oppose the homosexual agenda! You MUST accept that we are just like you, even though we aren't! Or we'll cry!"
"Nowhere in the case does the defense make that argument."
Well, I haven't seen a link to the transcript of the case. I've only read the ruling...you might remember this:
"In terms of state interests served by Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws, Defendants advance the following: the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children, tradition, and economic protection of Pennsylvania businesses."
That's the state of Pennsylvania making the argument. Thanks for the softball.
"Of course that's my business. But if his wife terminates a pregnancy, that's for sure none of my business."
Thus you ignore or are unaware of what constitutes right and wrong. Here, we see again that you look to legal to decide what is moral and right. You obviously are reserving your own right to encourage someone to abort, assuming you could find a woman to impregnate. Moral turpitude in action.
"Exactly. And the PA judge did that for me. Read his opinion."
I did. Twice. No argument demonstrating a failure or flaw in the defense position. Feel free to find one and I'll tell you again why you're so laughably wrong.
"I know that he knows the difference between "legitimate" and "important"."
Doubtful until I now told you, but I don't know that you can show that I regard them as the same thing.
and from an earlier example of your idiocy...
"Love is right. Hate is wrong. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.""
"Love is not self-seeking...Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth." Yet all this is present in homosexual behavior, in defense of it and in those who enable it.
Hate is wrong, but present in those like yourself who demonize those who rejoice in truth and wish to remind others of truth. It is present in the furthering of the homosexual agenda.
So homosexuals and their enablers would prefer that evil and sickness be done unto them.
Confirmation that you either don't know right from wrong, or don't care.
"Laws need not be altered. They shouldn't exist if they deprive people of basic human rights, privacy, dignity, and the pursuit of happiness without a justifiable reason."
Not a one of these things are deprived homosexuals by the marriage laws they demand be overturned. Thanks for demonstrating that truth. You're a peach.
"Where is the logic and common sense in these laws? You clearly didn't read the opinion since the judge shredded every word of the supposed "logic and common sense" in them."
Not true at all. Indeed, he has not rendered a counter argument at all, but merely dismissed the arguments of the defense. You highlighted two quotes of Jones and neither of them even attempts to find fault with the defense arguments to which he refers. That you can't comprehend the logic because you so much more prefer the immoral result of his dismissal does not mean he shredded anything.
Indeed, none of what you want to believe the judge addressed were actually addressed unless you believe that merely mentioning the defense position amounts to addressing it. And nothing you've presented demonstrates "shredding" of any kind. You just like the result because you are so morally corrupt and lack sense.
I'm not going to read the ruling a third time only to confirm what I already know about his incompetence and yours. If you have a link to the actual court transcripts where I read the play by play, I'll take the time. Until then, what you've presented is not an argument. It's doing the same childish "Nuh uh!" argument Jones put forth. So par for the homosexual and leftist course.
"You don't know what you're talking about!"
How about you couldn't find your ass if you weren't farting?
Try this.
"In Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988), the Court ruled that to “withstand intermediate scrutiny, a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.” So the relation to the objective must be more than merely non-arbitrary or rational – it must be substantial – and the objective itself must be more than merely valid [i.e. legitimate] or permissible – it must be important."
This is substantiated by not rebutting any defense argument he mentions in his ruling.
He certainly did. He easily rebutted the defense claim that the plaintiffs "had not established a personal, cognizable harm caused by the enforcement of the
Marriage Laws."
but you demand an entire state bend over for yours.
Nobody is forcing you to marry your boyfriend.
Can people decide for themselves or not?
THAT'S the F**KING POINT, isn't it?
Well, I haven't seen a link to the transcript of the case. I've only read the ruling...you might remember this:
As all decisions do, this one presents all arguments of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Reading the opinion will do the trick.
you might remember this:
I do, and it's immediately followed by this:
"Defendants appear to defend only the first two aims, stating that
numerous federal and state courts have agreed that responsible procreation and
child-rearing are legitimate state interests and providing extensive authority for
that proposition. Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are
“legitimate,” advancing no argument that the interests are “important” state
interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny."
Feel free to find one and I'll tell you again why you're so laughably wrong.
I just did. See the quote above.
I regard them as the same thing.
And that would make you ignorant of the law.
I don't have time at the moment to again show why you aren't close to proving anything, but it starts with your failure to understand the word "rebut". You also don't know how to apply what you think supports your position or "rebuts" mine. I'll educate you again later. Very busy over the next five days.
Jim,
First off, I was going through the comments to find out who said
"You don't know what you're talking about!"
I went back a few days and couldn't find either me or Glenn saying that. Doesn't matter, though, since it's so true about you.
Secondly...
"How about you couldn't find your ass if you weren't farting?"
Fancy that. Another assertion from a lefty. How unusual.
Thirdly, whilst looking back for that factual statement regarding you not knowing what you're talking about, I came across a short comment of yours that instead of redacting due to your childish name calling, I just deleted it. You may recall it. It's the one where you lied about Glenn and I regarding homosexuals as subhuman. I don't recall Glenn ever saying that, and I know that I never did. However, concerning YOU, subhuman would be a major upgrade.
Regarding your "Try this", I did and it does nothing but describe what has not been rebutted by you OR Judges Jones. The importance of the decision by states to recognize normal marriage is not hard to research and understand. We both quoted Jones' own words as to why the state recognizes real marriages and the purpose. And right there, in the very words YOU quote, he does NOT rebut the objective as being important. He merely says the defense offers no argument. But we don't have the transcripts to confirm that such an argument was never made. At the same time, the importance is self-evident and a truly honorable would not pretend there no reason why when he has access to all arguments given by every state for sanctioning real marriage in the first place, from before the time the morally bankrupt began pretending they were equally worthy of state interest.
To make things simple so that even you can understand it, what Jones is doing in his ruling is akin to saying one hasn't made an argument demonstrating the importance of breathing (you do know breathing is important, don't you?) by someone who takes in interest in the fact that everyone must breath. No. He just presumes and asserts that breathing isn't important and that there is no importance in the state taking interest in real marriage.
"He easily rebutted the defense claim that the plaintiffs "had not established a personal, cognizable harm caused by the enforcement of the
Marriage Laws."
Do you even know what the word "rebut" means? At best, he makes the same BS claims regarding things like inheritance law and hospital visits...all things that can be rectified without forcing the state to pretend there is some reason for it to take interest in their relationships as if they are akin to real marriages. And some laws, like joint tax filing, are basically whines that they should have that privilege because they have sex together. It's childish.
continuing...
"Nobody is forcing you to marry your boyfriend."
Not only does this have no relation to the statement to which this is supposed to be a clever response, it is not the least bit clever. It is among the stupidest of the pro-SSM lame attempts at witty retorts. But to address your moronic crap, we don't need to be forced to marry our friends. It's enough that you reprobates are forcing complicity by overturning the will of the people for the sake of the immoral.
I said,
"Can people decide for themselves or not?"
and you stupidly replied...
THAT'S the F**KING POINT, isn't it?
The point, you possessed of a sorry excuse for a brain, is that your shit-for-sense judges are depriving states of the right to decide for themselves which relationships compel their interest.
Think of it this way, Jim. Let's say all the people who believe as you do join you in starting a charity to support people who play with themselves because everyone of them agrees with you that sexual self-gratification is above all else in life. Thus, because getting your sexual jollies makes you happy, and that kind of happiness is important to you.
Then along comes a group of people who believe that they are entitled to those charitable dollars because they want to be happy, too, except that they believe that self-discipline is happiness because all the ills caused by people like you who put sexual self-gratification above all else. You don't want to share your charitable donated dollars with such people because their definition of happiness is different than yours. But they get judges to side with them to ignore your arguments defending play with yourself and rule that you must share your dollars with them and you must regard their definition of happiness as equal to yours.
Now, as an analogy for what's happening, it isn't perfect. No analogy is. But it does illustrate the reality of this battle in two ways:
1) You're a jag-off.
2) Those truly being denied the right to decide for themselves are the people of every state where a judge has overturned their democratically enacted laws regarding marriage. It is not the homosexuals, whose "right" to decide to engage in perversion, to pretend that perversion is normal, to form relationships in which they can engage in perversion as if they are man and wife...no one is stopping them (though they should stop themselves).
But can they decide that they should be treated like normal people and their unions should be regarded as normal marriages? Sure. But they have no basis for demanding that anyone else, including state governments, agree with what isn't true.
Here's another analogy:
A guy wants to be on a basketball team. He loves to play basketball, but he has a real problem. He sucks. The team has no interest in him because he does not benefit the team. They guy who sucks, let's call him "Jim", gets a judge to force the team to treat him as if he's Michael Jordan. THAT'S what you and the other homosexual enablers and the activists you enable are doing.
For the rest of your idiotic last comment, you merely restate the same stupidity, that the judge saying the defense hasn't made a case means the judge has rebutted the defense case. It. Does. Not. Repeating it won't make it more of a rebuttal.
And right there, in the very words YOU quote, he does NOT rebut the objective as being important.
Clearly you are confused. The argument is not that the state interest in "normal" marriage is legitimate or important. The argument is that the reasons for BANNING same-sex are legitimate or important.
That heterosexual couples can procreate and marriage laws promote the well-being of children are legitimate reasons to recognize their marriages, but it does not justify denying marriage to gays. The supposed "fact" that same-sex couples cannot by themselves procreate may be a legitimate interest for the state to ban same-sex marriage, but since heterosexuals who are unable or unwilling to procreate are not banned from marriage makes the interest unimportant.
It's really simple. People have rights. Denial of those rights causes harm. Those who are denied rights need not be "worthy" of the right. (You can't be denied the right to own a gun just because you can't hit a target.) In order to Constitutionally deny rights, the state must prove that not denying the right causes harm to the state.
The judge in this case addressed all of this. The defense never made a case that allowing gay marriage would harm the state, and the judge had no legal obligation to "research" what harm one study or another claims, especially if the argument isn't being offered made by the defense.
what Jones is doing in his ruling is akin to saying one hasn't made an argument demonstrating the importance of breathing
No, what he is saying is that you can't deprive someone of the right to breathe just because you don't like the smell of garlic breath.
Do you even know what the word "rebut" means?
Yes.
all things that can be rectified
Which puts an unnecessary burden on the plaintiffs. Those things cost money. Marriage makes all of those things automatic.
without forcing the state to pretend there is some reason for it to take interest in their relationships
The state doesn't have to have an interest in recognizing their marriage. It has to have an interest in banning it.
And some laws, like joint tax filing, are basically whines that they should have that privilege because they have sex together.
How does that not apply to heterosexual marriage?
you reprobates are forcing complicity by overturning the will of the people for the sake of the immoral.
If a state votes by 75% to ban the possession of firearms by people with tiny penises, that law should not be struck down because it is the will of the people?
judges are depriving states of the right to decide for themselves which relationships compel their interest.
Do you understand the reason for the Bill of Rights and the 14th and 15th Amendments?
Your masturbation charity example has no relevance whatsoever to this issue. It's a private organization with no state interest.
Your baseball team can easily make the argument that the team has a legitimate and VERY important interest in having "Jim" banned from the team because his being on the team will cost wins and revenue.
Repeating it won't make it more of a rebuttal.
OK, so what Defense arguments are not rebutted? And as a matter of law, please remember that an argument may be strictly true without being legally correct. For example, married heterosexual couples can procreate. This is true but it doesn't meet Constitutional requirements for restricting marriage to only them.
Jim still continues like all the homosexualists and leftists by claiming the queers are denied rights. However, the only "rights" they are denied are rights which come from being married. So they want the right to redefine what marriage is.
No one has the right to redefine an institution just so they can get whatever benefits that institution provides.
You don't qualify for marriage, you don't get the rights.
Only stupid people and people with an agenda don't understand such simple explanations.
Jim,
The CONSTITUTION gives the right to own guns. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, not just a bunch of people voting.
There is no constitutional right for anyone to change the definition of marriage. And when people try to do so, it is perfectly within the rights of sane and rational people to institute laws forbidding such changes.
It is liberal homosexualists who deny the people the right to prevent the perversion of marriage.
And now that you perverts have the changes, you cannot deny incestuous marriages or polygamy and be consistent with your ideology.
You are really quite queer, Glenn. Nothing intelligent seems to get through your cranium which makes you unteachable as "they" say.
Gays claim they have rights that are denied. Numerous judges agree that gays are denied rights. The Supreme Court says that gays are denied rights. Ergo, gays ARE denied rights. When the law says queers like you can't own a Smith & Wesson but you can own anything else while anybody else can own whatever they want, if you want a Smith & Wesson, you are being denied a right to own one.
No one has the right to redefine an institution just so they can get whatever benefits that institution provides.
The definition isn't changing, but yeah, they can ask to be included according to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said they can be included.
You don't qualify for marriage, you don't get the rights.
You get the rights unless you are disqualified.
Only stupid people and people with an agenda don't understand such simple explanations.
Only stupid people and people with an agenda don't understand such simple explanations.
It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, not just a bunch of people voting.
Exactly! Any law denying that right would be challenged and overturned by the courts regardless of whether or not it was the will of the people. So remember that every time you accuse some "activist" judge of "legislating from the bench" against the will of the people.
There is no constitutional right for anyone to change the definition of marriage.
Nobody is changing the definition, but neither does the Constitution say definitions can't be changed.
perfectly within the rights of sane and rational people to institute laws forbidding such changes.
Only if they have a good, Constitutional reason to do so.
It is liberal homosexualists who deny the people the right to prevent the perversion of marriage.
Denying a right is not a right. People have the right to deny themselves whatever they think is perverse but not to deny others the right to decide for themselves what IS perverse.
And now that you perverts have the changes, you cannot deny incestuous marriages or polygamy and be consistent with your ideology.
Sure can if that denial passes constitutional muster. Our "ideology" is that a person has the right to marry the person of their choice unless the state can show a Constitutionally valid reason to deny it. Very consistent.
Jim,
You are the unteachable one. You go with what man's law says versus what God's law says. And versus what common sense says. Just because judges say queers are denied rights by being unable to marry, that doesn't make it so. Judges also say people have a right to murder their unborn children, and judges also said slavery was okay. Any judge saying that queers have a right to marry each other is only promoting an agenda. They could also say a tail has a right to be a leg, but that doesn't make it a fact.
Yes, people are changing the definition of marriage, and you are lying to everyone when you claim they aren't. Marriage has always, for thousands of years in every culture, meant the union of male and female. Since that is the definition for thousands of years, for evil perverts like yourself to say it now includes two people of the same sex, is a redefinition. And only perverted judges would agree with you.
There has been proven over and over a Constitutionally valid reason for not allowing fake marriage, but perverts like you deny the reasons. The exact same reasons to allow same-sex fake marriage can be used for any other union. That is the logical consistency.
How are two brothers in a same-sex union, or two sisters in a same-sex union, any different than any other same-sex union? See, you have to allow incest because there is no valid reason to deny it.
Your ilk will know better at judgment day. We will watch society totally crumble around us as perverts have sex with anyone and anything, multiple partners, etc and no one can deny them such rights because there is no difference between a man shoving up another man or a man shoving up a goat. It is a perversion of human sexuality.
Just because judges say queers are denied rights by being unable to marry, that doesn't make it so.
Yes it does. That's how the US judicial system works. Missed Civics in high school?
Judges also say people have a right to murder their unborn children,
No they don't. They say women have a right to terminate a pregnancy under certain conditions.
judges also said slavery was okay.
Yes, they did, but then the 13th Amendment changed the "definition" so-to-speak.
Any judge saying that queers have a right to marry each other is only promoting an agenda.
No, they are interpreting the laws and Constitution.
They could also say a tail has a right to be a leg, but that doesn't make it a fact.
And you can also suggest that and it would be as stupid and ignored as such a decision saying that. Especially since nobody would be asking them to do that.
Yes, people are changing the definition of marriage
When states started making laws that said that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, THAT was changing the definition.
you are lying to everyone when you claim they aren't.
No I'm not.
Marriage has always, for thousands of years in every culture, meant the union of male and female.
Irrelevant even if it were true.
for evil perverts like yourself
What makes you think I'm a pervert? I think you are queer.
to say it now includes two people of the same sex, is a redefinition.
No, it just expands the list of who is qualified. That's what "includes" means.
And only perverted judges would agree with you.
Five justices of the Supreme Court and something like 22 other judges so far are perverts? Do you have some sort of view into their bedrooms?
There has been proven over and over a Constitutionally valid reason for not allowing fake marriage
Clearly this is an HUGE lie. Firstly a marriage with a license is not "fake" unless the license is forged. Secondly, you cannot show me any evidence whatsoever that there are any such Constitutionally valid reasons that have been proved over and over. The SCOTUS and over 20 courts have said that there aren't. But I'll read any such "proof" that you can link me to.
The exact same reasons to allow same-sex fake marriage can be used for any other union.
No, not if the state can show an important and compelling reason to deny those unions.
That is the logical consistency.
No, anything other than two unrelated and unmarried people would not be the same as what is being asked for by gays. Anything else would be inconsistent logic.
How are two brothers in a same-sex union, or two sisters in a same-sex union, any different than any other same-sex union?
Because they are as related as two people could possibly ever be (unless they are identical twins or clones).
See, you have to allow incest because there is no valid reason to deny it.
Of course there are: genetics, abuse/exploitation, disruption of family dynamics.
Your ilk will know better at judgment day.
I'm shaking in my boots. (This is your refuge when you can't make the legal argument. God says it's a sin, and that's all I have to say about that.)
perverts have sex with anyone and anything, multiple partners, etc and no one can deny them such rights because there is no difference between a man shoving up another man or a man shoving up a goat.
Only in your dreams.
Yes it does. That's how the US judicial system works. Missed Civics in high school?
There you go confusing with what is legal with what is right and moral. You are a moral reprobate.
No they don't. They say women have a right to terminate a pregnancy under certain conditions.
Intentionally killing an innocent person is defined as murder. You want to give it a euphemism so as to sanitize what it is. You are a moral reprobate.
Yes, they did, but then the 13th Amendment changed the "definition" so-to-speak.
Are you really so stupid? There was no change of “definition” in any manner. They just said slavery was okay the first time, and someone else came along with some actual moral values and said, no, it is NOT okay. The point being that immoral reprobate judges make bad decisions which affect society.
No, they are interpreting the laws and Constitution
NO, they are practicing eisegesis - reading their own agenda into the documents and finding what was never there.
And yes, when you call two people of the same sex a “marriage,” it is no different than calling a tail a leg or a dandelion a rose. You can’t just call something what it isn’t and then change the definition of what you want to call it so you can then say it IS what you called it.
When states started making laws that said that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, THAT was changing the definition.
Wrong - they were reminding people what marriage really is and that they would brook no attempt to change the definition.
Irrelevant even if it were true.
Irrelevant?!?! To fools perhaps. If something has carried a specific definition for thousands of years, it certainly is relevant if someone wants to change the definition.
You are a pervert to enable perverts and justify perversion. I am “queer” in that in comparison to you I am “strange,” because I have sanity and morality.
No, it just expands the list of who is qualified. That's what "includes" means.
In order to “expand the list of who is qualified,” the definition of the word has to be changed. The definition of the word for thousands of years never included same-sex perverts.
Any judge who promotes the homosexual agenda by sanctioning same-sex behavior in any way is a pervert who had to twist the meanings of ever legal document in order to promote the homosexualist agenda. HE has to have a personal agenda or he would not perverts justice.
The state forever has demonstrated that there is a compelling reason to not sanction perverse sexual behavior because it is corruptive of society. By removing that compelling reason for queers, they cannot logically or consistently maintain any other reason as “compelling.” What compelling reason can they have to deny any other union? NONE. What harm to society is caused by two brothers or two sisters “marrying”? How does genetics matter - they can’t reproduce? Disruption of family dynamics wasn’t a compelling enough reason to disallow queers from “marrying.”
Shake in your boots. I made the legal argument plainly. But I also provided you and your ilk a warning.
There you go confusing with what is legal with what is right and moral.
So you are conceding the legal argument.
You are a moral reprobate.
Did you get that word from watching "Elmer Gantry"? You think you are good at name calling?
Intentionally killing an innocent person is defined as murder.
Yes it is. A fetus is not a person.
You are a moral reprobate.
Your record has a scratch in it.
They just said slavery was okay
Everybody (but the slaves themselves) said it was OK for thousands of years. Then in the 17th and 18th centuries attitudes throughout the world began to change, people came around, and eventually Congress and the states passed the 13th Amendment ending slavery. (It wasn't the judges.)
NO, they are practicing eisegesis
Nice big word! Wouldn't you have to know the agenda of each and every one of these judges to make this claim? Where did you read their agendas? These judges were appointed by different presidents. How do you suppose they all came over to the dark side? Maybe everyone of them found out they have a gay child?
And yes, when you call two people of the same sex a “marriage,” it is no different than calling a tail a leg or a dandelion a rose.
Whatever you call the appendage of a dog it still wags. And whatever you call the weed, it still has a seed puff and a yellow flower.
Wrong - they were reminding people what marriage really is and that they would brook no attempt to change the definition.
Since when is the purpose of a law to "remind" people of anything?
If something has carried a specific definition for thousands of years, it certainly is relevant if someone wants to change the definition.
For thousands of years a "soldier" was a male. Now we understand that a soldier is not defined by their gender (or even their sexual orientation). Very basic things change over time. A marriage need not be defined by who is married, but by what that couple is committed to (love, honor, cherish, etc.).
In order to “expand the list of who is qualified,” the definition of the word has to be changed.
If the legal drinking age is lowered from 21 to 18, does that change the definition of drinking?
Any judge who promotes the homosexual agenda by sanctioning same-sex behavior in any way is a pervert who had to twist the meanings of ever legal document in order to promote the homosexualist agenda.
I would LOVE to have you show point by point how this judge in his opinion has twisted the meaning of any specific document. Or any other judge in their decision. Back it up if you can.
The state forever has demonstrated that there is a compelling reason to not sanction perverse sexual behavior because it is corruptive of society.
No it hasn't. See Lawrence v. Texas for example. Got any opinions to back up your claim? Got any state laws that include text enumerating these compelling reasons? I'll read them.
By removing that compelling reason for queers, they cannot logically or consistently maintain any other reason as “compelling.”
Well, first you'd have to actually show us these enumerated reasons and then you would have to demonstrate why they apply equally to your other fetishes.
What compelling reason can they have to deny any other union?
The same ones I've shown before, ones that don't apply to same-sex couples.
What harm to society is caused by two brothers or two sisters “marrying”? How does genetics matter - they can’t reproduce?
Missed biology, too?
There is no evidence that same-sex marriage disrupts family dynamics.
I made the legal argument plainly.
Not in the least. You clearly have little or knowledge of actual law nor have you cited any legal precedent or doctrine whether it might back you up or not. You've done nothing more than call a couple of dozen judges perverts.
That's your legal argument, plainly.
I can see where discussing anything with Jim is like talking to a wall. He is unteachable and will never give up his support of perversion.
I'm not going to re-address all the nonsense because I've got better things to do, but one statement by Jim is downright hilarious:
My statement: What harm to society is caused by two brothers or two sisters “marrying”? How does genetics matter - they can’t reproduce?
Jim's comment: Missed biology, too?
So, Jim must think two brothers can reproduce and two sisters can reproduce?!?! After all, the claim against allowing incest is genetic problems with reproduction, so in the biology I studied two males nor two females have the ability to reproduce. Jim's ideology is extremely bizarre.
One other: the definition - READ AGAIN -DEFINITION of "soldier" does not include "male." females have been soldiers for thousands of years.
That's the problem with liberals, they have no common sense, which is why thy think same sex fake marriage is okay.
Marshall, good luck.
Ya got me, Glenn. Your "legal arguments" were so twisted that that one got by me.
You've plainly made your case.
Post a Comment