Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Iroscato]

Two gay people cannot have kids.  That's a biological fact.

So now you're comparing two gay people having sex to murder, rape, necrophiliia, pedophilia, and kleptomania?  Please tell me how it's as bad as any of those fucking things?  Go on.  And please do it without citing a book that also has talking animals and without a stupid fucking slippery slope argument, because anything can lead to anything, so we'd have to outlaw fuck near everything.

Really?  You had better let them know that because whenever I said anything long that line I was informed that a gay man and a lesbian woman may conceive of a child or they may utilize IVF.


You really should read this thread as we have present the argument numerous times.  You would also notice we have not utilize the book with talking animals a single time.  As was done before so done again:
1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)
4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Orientation leads to an action having a particular negative resultant when normalized has a negative universal resultant.  Logically sound and not a slippery slope.  Enjoy.

You are honestly that stupid, aren't you? The human race continues to amaze me daily, and you are one such example, albeit an incredibly negative one.
Wow...

[The Grand Nudger]

Ha ha!!  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So recognition of the creator also goes with the territory?  No.  Than may we say the argument all men are created equal is as valid a statement as them being endowed by their creator?

You seem to think that because I agree with one part of the statement, I must agree with the other.  I hold that truth to be self evident -regardless-.  I'm perfectly satisfied with those inalienable rights being endowed by...wait for it......us. It makes absolutely no difference. Point of fact....we did the endowing, or else we wouldn't have needed to write that.

We recognize that all men are not created equally quite readily.  Sure they are all born human.  Some are born blind, retarded, deaf, mute, deformed, psychopathic, sociopathic, etcetera.  To say they are equal to those not born with such conditions is a false equivalency.  They are different and must be dealt with differently.  To not do so is to harm those in need of aid and to harm society by not prohibiting those in need of restraint.

But it would appear we are in the same boat as your false equivalency does not concern me one iota.

-You- may recognize that...but you're a bigot.....and I'm not. For some reason, I don't think you'd be satisfied with that were it to be decided that you're the different inferior (which you are, of course).

So, I did accurately summarize your position, right...no objections? You're okay with the state discriminating against the different and inferior gays because of some compelling interest. Correct?

[Longhorn]

I'm off to have gay sex to rush the extinction of the human race while my neighbor gives birth to her 8th child. Yep, logically sound and all....

[Crossless2.0]

I'm off to have gay sex to rush the extinction of the human race while my neighbor gives birth to her 8th child. Yep, logically sound and all....

Of course, you're the reason we can't have anything nice. The bigots are just holding the line against barbarism and eventual extinction.

Real heroes.

[robvalue]

Let us pray about the biggest problem the world is currently facing, sodomy.

http://youtu.be/HA0IxhmTTgk

[Minimalist]

Amusing.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/alabama-...ce-papers/

Alabama governor who called marriage equality a ‘social experiment’ slapped with divorce papers

How's that whole one-man one-woman thing working out for you, guv?

[Losty]

[Ace]

Because homosexuality requires the informed consent of both adult parties. Paedophilia by definition cannot,
because one of the one of the parties is not capable of giving informed consent.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Defines:  Pedophilia not only as a sexual orientation that is s an intense and recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children.

July 2010, Harvard Health Publications declared: “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges

Basic online dictionary: Pedophilia is defined as an adult desires or engages in sexual relations with a child.

No actual mention of age is mentioned. But I see your point and half agree.

Because one of the one of the parties is not capable of giving informed consent . . .Because it is so impossible that it is not even possible?  . .  . So as long as we do the precise opposite of what they do, we can't go wrong

Fact, in 12 states, including California New York, Illinois, Maryland and Louisiana in states civil law diverts from the criminal law. A juvenile can conceit to engage in sex with an adult.

-2009 US District Court for California's Central District that said in certain circumstances a minor can consent to sex. That ruling, in the case of Doe v. Starbucks, cited a 2001 decision by the California Supreme Court in a criminal case, People v. Tobias.  
-In Tobias, the supreme court argued that when the state legislature added the crime of  "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" to the penal code in 1970, the lawmakers "implicitly acknowledged that, in some cases at least, a minor may be capable of giving legal consent to sexual relations."

-2010 Case at School in Southeast Los Angeles began a six-month sexual relationship with a girl who went to the school. The teacher, Elkis Hermida, was convicted of lewd acts against a child and sentenced in July 2011 to three years in state prison.
-During the three week civil trial, district lawyers denied that L.A. Unified had any knowledge of the relationship, argued the girl knew what she was doing when she chose to have sex with Hermida and suggested the girl was to blame for her situation, not LAUSD. "She went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn't she be responsible for that?"


-COLUMBUS, Ohio - Court case ruled that a 19-year-old admitted to sexual contact with a 10-year-old girl. Both the prosecutors and the judge say the 10-year-old victim was not forced into sex with an adult.
-Judge Stephen McIntosh, who presided over the case, says the evidence shows the girl was a willing participant in the act
-He could have faced 18 months in prison.
[url=http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/05/14/columbus-ohio-questions-raised-over-age-of-consent-after-teen-gets-probation-for-sexual-contact-with-10-year-old.html

-Los Angeles Unified School District lawyers fighting a civil lawsuit argued in court that a 14-year-old middle school student was mature enough to consent to having sex with her 28-year-old teacher, and that she bore some responsibility for what happened.

Correct. Backwards fucked-up religious shitholes are the ones that give the OK to fuck kids, not civilised nations.

Hahaha , No  instead our fellow  non-religious/educated/ civilized western men just travel to these “backwards fucked-up religious shitholes,”[ Baltics, Latin America, (U.S. men 80%)  Asia, (Thailand European men about 80%) Middle East]  for exclusive reason of have sex with children.

Some references
- Shelley, Louise. Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 2010, pg. 210
- George,Kirkham & Territo, Leonardo. International Sex Trafficking of Women & Children: Understanding the Global.  Looseleaf Law Publications 2010. Chapter 25.
- Hepbum, Stephanie & Simon, Rita J. Human Trafficking Around the World: Hidden in Plain Sight. 2013, Columbia University Press. Pg. 26
-Cotter M. Kelly. Combating Child Sex Tourism In Southeast Asia. Cotter Marco 2019.
[url=http://djilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Combating-Child-Sex-Tourism-Southeast-Asia-Kelly-M-Cotter.pdf]http://djilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Combating-Child-Sex-Tourism-Southeast-Asia-Kelly-M-Cotter.pdf

And a shit load of other books and scholarly journal that have be written on the subject if you want more.

They also execute gay people.

Which Country

Countries in the west do not.

Oh wow, so Mathew Shepherded, Harvey Milk, Steven Charles, Scotty Joe Weaver, James Byrd, & Tina Branded, (to name a few) are still alive or are you saying that they died of natural causes?  

I was 11 ten years ago, but even then I could see the winds of change happening. So yes, quite easily I can say I saw it coming a mile off.

Really? you expect me to believe that in 2005 during the Bush Administration,( an 11 year old, around  the 6th grade, possible starting puberty),  knew that the outcome of gay unions was going to be same sex marriage??? Knowing that at this time the nation was very much against it. No political party backed it or political candidate in congress or running for president backed it. Courts are ruling in favor of traditional marriage. Both the federal, (with DOMA) and state government enacted laws/amendments to have marriage defined as a man and women only.  You were able to predict this out come when legal scholars, experts, and gay advocacy groups who were “surprised at legalization of same sex marriage, or how everything happen so fast.” Yet, you knew that in 2015 same sex marriage would be legalized?

YYYEEEAAAA, . . . .No, I HAVE TO CALL BULL SHIT. . .

TL;DR - you're a delusional twit with absofuckinglutely nothing of value to add. So on the ignore list you go, ta-ta.

HAHAHAHA is this not like the 2nd or 3rd time were you ‘going to start ignoring me.’ HAHAHA, and like Yeauxleaux, you two keep coming back for more . . . .I know its addicting.

[Ace]

If polygamy is accepted then polygamy is accepted..whats the problem?  If polygamy were acceptable (it isn;t?) then you';d what....go get some extra husbands?  If incest is accepted then incest is accepted, whats the problem?  You'd diddle your siblings?  

Why stop there? Keep going, keep going, you'll get there.

You has this " line of relationships" drawn, with one side marked for those who should be accepted and which should not be. You say no if the line is only drawn for accepting heterosexual couples. The gay community has argued that it should not only be fore hetero's but for us as well, regardless if they want it or not.

You want the line to be felxable, were it accepts homosexuality and because you are not so opposed if other's like polygamy and incest, should be allowed in as well. But, when the one's you don't want wants in, now the potion is taken,( which was the hetero position from the begging) were you now what to draw the line and say "No more, only us."

But why? Who are you to say no and why should the other sexual preferences even think about what you want or like into account? You had no problem with telling the hetero, "tough shit!" "What you want does not mean shit to me!" So why can the other sexual preferences say the same to you? "Tough shit!" " What you want does not mean shit to me!"

No, this line of acceptance a is either felxable or it is not. Like they say, you can't have it both ways.

You say well the differences is age of conceit , yet I already presented you with 3 different bills that do not even take into account of the age of conceit and argue that because "homosexuals have been accepted it is now time to" . . . . 2; that wish to legalize pedo's and 1; that provided legal protection (under a hate crime bill that is even named after two gay men who were killed). There have already been 4 court cases where it has been ruled that an underage kid can legally give consent to engage in sexual activity with an adult. Again there age not being taken into account but their personal actions.

[Longhorn]

What are those court rulings supposed to prove? Statutory rape remains a crime, and for good reasons.

A child, especially a prepubescent one, cannot give informed consent, because their abstract and logical thinking is not yet developed. Hence sexual contact with a child by an adult is always rape and always mentally damaging. That much is easily demonstrable, which is clearly not the case with homosexuality.

I get the impression you are being purposefully facetious and don't honestly believe the tripe you're regurgitating.

Let me know when the movement for legalizing child abuse starts. I'll wait.