Same-Sex Marriage Opponents are LOSING Because NO FACTS Even EXIST to Support Them!
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Same-Sex Marriage Opponents are LOSING
Because NO FACTS Even EXIST to Support Them!
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,
>>>> (aka "Springfield1911") moronically spewed:
>>>>> Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
>>>>> amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
>>>> And very STUPIDLY so, since same-sex marriage is 100%
>>>> HARMLESS!
>>>>
>> >> As society FAST is figuring out at an ACCELERATING pace!
>>>>
>>>> Watch as those states SOON start REPEALING those hate-laws
>>>> like a row of dominoes!
>>> Here you go again equating the definition of marriage as a "union
>>> for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"...
>> ...to the specious and *irrational* EXCLUSION of same-sex couples...
> And yet, so many courts found that the definitional exclusion
> passed rational basis review, starting in 1971.
They must have clutched at a LOT of straws to do that!
>>> ...with hate.
>> Only because it IS. There is NO EXCUSE for according such
>> SPECIAL rights to opposite-sex couples. The Constitution specifies
>> NO barrier to marriage on the basis of gender makeup.
> Neither does it forbid it. Thomas Sowell explains it.
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/affirmative-action-and-same-sex-marriage/
http://
www.
washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/
affirmative-action-and-same-sex-marriage/
> http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/sowell_thomas/060814.shtml
http://
www.
thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/
sowell_thomas/060814.shtml
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp
http://
www.
jewishworldreview.com/
cols/sowell032400.asp
>> You have NOTHING to gain by being so irrationally hateful, since
>> same-sex marriage is 100% HARMLESS!
> Jeff Jacoby writes about demagogues and the marriage debate.
I notice with interest that you were unable to refute the point
that I just made -- that same-sex marriage is HARMLESS.
> Demagogues and the Marriage Bebate
>
>by Jeff Jacoby
>The Boston Globe
>June 7, 2006
>
>http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4480/demagogues-and-the-marriage-debate
http://
www.
jeffjacoby.com/4480/
demagogues-and-the-marriage-debate
>NOTE: This column is available through the New York Times Syndicate.
>For permission to reprint it, please contact pea...@nytimes.com or
>call 800-535-4425.
>
>IN A STATEMENT opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment debated in
>Congress this week, Senator Edward Kennedy said that "gay and lesbian
>couples deserve the same rights as married couples under state law"
>and dismissed the amendment as "a wholly inappropriate effort to
>override state courts and to intrude into individuals' private lives."
>
>How should those who disagree with Kennedy's position react to it? By
>explaining on the merits why they believe he's wrong? Or by calling
>him names -- a "gay-loving fanatic," say, or an "immoral pervert"?
A third option: They could become intelligent enough to realize
that SSM is 100% harmless and REVERSE their stance.
> It's a no-brainer. Only a demagogue believes that the controversy over
> same-sex marriage can be improved by hurling insults at those who
> radically want to change the meaning of matrimony.
Marriage is MARRIAGE. Gender composition is TRIVIAL. Thus,
ending the irrational EXCLUSION of gays from it is *not* a "radical
change."
> Even if you think they are wrong, there is no reason to doubt that
> most Americans who favor legalizing gay and lesbian marriages con-
> sider it an issue of fairness and tolerance.
And that is precisely what it IS.
> Their arguments should be challenged with facts and logic, not vitriol.
However, NO *FACTS* even EXIST that can make a sensible
argument against totally-harmless SSM. Which is why the opponents
are LOSING -- BIG-time. Society is FAST figuring that out!
> Anyone who slandered Kennedy with slurs like those above would
> be considered contemptible, and rightly so.
>
> It is just as contemptible when the slurs and slander are hurled in
> the other direction.
>
> "A vote for this amendment," Kennedy has said repeatedly, "is a vote
> for bigotry, pure and simple."
He was RIGHT. And he called a spade a spade. Bigots DESERVE
to be called bigots, since they are completely without excuse.
> Like so many on his side of the debate, he insists that supporters of
> the marriage amendment are fanatics and haters -- knuckle-draggers
> from "the rabid reactionary right" who want to "stain the Constitution
> with their language of bigotry," as he put it the last time the Senate
> took up the issue.
My admiration for him just now increased 2,000%!!
> If you are strongly committed to the traditional understanding of
> marriage as the union of husband and wife, in other words, you aren't
> just wrong -- you're evil. You aren't fit to debate with, only to
> demonize.
That sums it up quite FAIRLY.
> Kennedy and his allies don't want to consider your point of view,
> and they don't want anyone else considering it either.
For the same reason we/they had/have NO interest in considering
the point of view of the Nazis. It is ABSURD to accord any credibility
to people who have disregard for civil & human rights.
> And they know that there is no better way to make a viewpoint so
> toxic that decent Americans shun it than to portray it as the equiva-
> lent of racism and prejudice.
Precisely. Opposition to SSM is the EQUIVALENT of that.
> But if it's "bigotry, pure and simple" not to want same-sex marriage
> to be forced on American society by a handful of crusading courts...
BZZZzzztttt!!! ---
(1) It is IMPOSSIBLE to "FORCE" * **FREEDOM** upon anyone.
When a freedom is accorded, all people have the capability to
access it or pass on it. It has NO adverse affect on those
who pass on it, and it is enjoyed by those who access it. No
harm, no foul!
(2) Appellate courts have been very BENEFICIAL to the American
people, very consistently, in coming down in FAVOR of support-
ing and according liberties. Quite possibly the Dred Scott dec-
ision had a silver lining -- SHAMING the courts into never again
making such a horrible mistake!! And the court OFTEN are 'way
ahead of the curve in according FAIRNESS, and saving society
a LOT of grief! E.g., Roe vs. Wade. WITHOUT that, the BEST
act of EMANICPAION since Abraham Lincoln, America would
still today -- almost 40 years later -- be a hodgepodge of FREE
states and REPRESSIVE states! The Supreme Court did Amer-
ica a HUGE favor! Just as it did earlier (1967) with "Loving vs.
Virginia" and later (2003) with "Lawrence vs. Texas." That
Court was HEROIC -- except for the *HUGE* stain of "Bush vs.
Gore!" Which, tragically, can NEVER be undone!
>...then among the bigots must be the large congressional majority -- 85
> senators, 342 representatives -- who passed the Defense of Marriage
> Act in 1996, confirming that marriage in the United States is between
> members of the opposite sex only and allowing states to deny
> recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Former
> President Bill Clinton must be a bigot too: He signed the bill into
> law.
So-called "DOMA" laws are the worst ones since Jim Crow!! The
Federal DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional, and i think that
very SOON we will see the states REPEALING those hate-laws such
that they fall like a row of dominoes!
Clinton signed the federal DOMA *only* to avoid a certain OVER-
RIDE if he vetoed it. And today, Clinton openly ADVOCATES Marriage
Equality!
>The bigots must also include the dozens of American religious leaders
>who signed the Religious Coalition for Marriage statement endorsing
>the marriage amendment.
Well, DUH!!! What else can we expect from RRR & LDS cultists?
> The list of signatories is remarkably ecumenical -- Roman Catholic
> cardinals, Greek and Russian Orthodox primates, the president of
> the National Association of Evangelicals, Jewish rabbis, an apostle
> of the Mormon church, the president of the Coalition of African-
> American Pastors, the editor of Christianity Today, and many others.
> Bigots all, apparently.
Bigots *mostly*, OBVIOUSLY!
>Vastly more numerous are voters in the 19 states where constitutional
>amendments securing the definition of marriage have been put on the
>ballot. "In every case," as President Bush observed this week, "the
>amendments were approved by decisive majorities, with an average of
>71%." All told, 45 of the 50 states either have adopted constitutional
> amendments or enacted laws meant to keep the timeless meaning of
> marriage from being undone.
"To keep the timeless meaning of marriage from being undone." (??)
That's the most OBVIOUS proof yet that this is a BIASED article!
And -- BTW -- how can it be "45 states" when SIX states now have
legal Marriage Equality? Since when do we have 51 states??
Tragically, enough people in those bigoted states were CONNED by
the massive efforts to propagandize people and lay scare tactics and
LIES on them, by the RRR and LDS Cults. With good luck, that will
NEVER happen again. And HERE is a GOOD example *why* ---
http://www.egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html
Study the Table and the Maps WELL. And LEARN!
> If Kennedy is right, all those states, all those lawmakers, all those
> voters should be despised as bigots.
Kennedy was right. But people can LEARM, and OUTGROW
bigotry. That is happening today at an accelerating pace! Before
much longer, the hate-agendas against gay rights will be as EXTINCT
as segregation, and any openly-bigoted people that remain will be
social PARIAHS. Very deservedly.
> But Kennedy isn't right.
Wrong. See my last paragraph, above.
> It is not bigotry to insist that there is a good reason why marriage
> has existed in every known human society...
...INCLUDING ones in the O.T. when *polygamy* and having
concubines on the side was commonplace, acceptable, and legal,
just as still is the case in many countries today.
> ...and why it has always involved the uniting of men and women.
SLAVERY was *traditional* in the USA and before that, in the
colonies, for hundreds of years. Just as we GOT RID of that worth-
less "tradition," we can ALSO get rid of the "tradition" of according
a SPECIAL right to opposite-sex couples to EXCLUDE same-sex
couples from marriage.
> It is not bigotry to acknowledge what reams of scholarship confirm:
> Family structure matters, and children are more likely to suffer
> problems when they are not raised by their married mothers and
> fathers.
HALF of America's children today are being raised by SINGLE
parents... and the writer of this piece of TRIPE is WHINING about
kids who are lucky enough to have two gay parents INSTEAD?!?
> It is not bigotry to resist the dishonest comparison of same-sex
> marriage to interracial marriage.
Wrong! That is an HONEST comparison. BOTH cases had/have
to do with the EXCLUSION from marriage of groups of people who
should NEVER have been hatefully excluded from it!
> -- skin color has nothing to do with wedlock, while sex is
> fundamental to it.
Really?? I wonder if this writer bothered to check the stats on
opposite-sex married couples who NEVER have sex? Tens of MIL-
LIONS of them!!
> And it is not bigotry to fear that a social change as radical as
> same-sex marriage...
"Radical." ROTFL!!!!
> ...could lead to grave and unintended consequences, from the
> persecution of religious institutions...
Even though a LOT of today's so-called "religious institutions"
richly DESERVE to be **set straight**, same-sex marriage will
effect NO such reforms. NO churches are being FORCED to
perform marriages for gay couples -- and at bottom, ALL mar-
riages, gay and straight, are STATE-sanctioned and -licensed.
By law!
> ... to a growing clamor for legalizing polygamy.
Advocates of polygamy will still seek it, with or without the
legalization of SSM. And if polygamy CAN work in this society,
that would be NO big deal!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 6 websites below.)
http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- BRAND-NEW 2011 Edition!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html -- Searchable Database
of the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human Rights! KNOW the
enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the enemies, as much
as it is legally possible to do so!
Michael Ejercito
www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <c...@z.com> wrote:
> Same-Sex Marriage Opponents are LOSING
> Because NO FACTS Even EXIST to Support Them!
>
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
> Michael Ejercito<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >>> Here you go again equating the definition of marriage as a "union
> >>> for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"...
> >> ...to the specious and *irrational* EXCLUSION of same-sex couples...
> > And yet, so many courts found that the definitional exclusion
> > passed rational basis review, starting in 1971.
>
> They must have clutched at a LOT of straws to do that!
>
> >>> ...with hate.
> >> Only because it IS. There is NO EXCUSE for according such
> >> SPECIAL rights to opposite-sex couples. The Constitution specifies
> >> NO barrier to marriage on the basis of gender makeup.
> > Neither does it forbid it. Thomas Sowell explains it.
>
>
> http://
> www.
> thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/
> sowell_thomas/060814.shtml
>
> > http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp
>
> http://
> www.
> jewishworldreview.com/
> cols/sowell032400.asp
>
> >> You have NOTHING to gain by being so irrationally hateful, since
> >> same-sex marriage is 100% HARMLESS!
> > Jeff Jacoby writes about demagogues and the marriage debate.
>
> I notice with interest that you were unable to refute the point
> that I just made -- that same-sex marriage is HARMLESS.
>
> > Demagogues and the Marriage Bebate
>
> >by Jeff Jacoby
> >The Boston Globe
> >June 7, 2006
>
> >http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4480/demagogues-and-the-marriage-debate
>
> http://
> www.
> jeffjacoby.com/4480/
> demagogues-and-the-marriage-debate
>
> >NOTE: This column is available through the New York Times Syndicate.
> >call 800-535-4425.
>
> >IN A STATEMENT opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment debated in
> >Congress this week, Senator Edward Kennedy said that "gay and lesbian
> >couples deserve the same rights as married couples under state law"
> >and dismissed the amendment as "a wholly inappropriate effort to
> >override state courts and to intrude into individuals' private lives."
>
> >How should those who disagree with Kennedy's position react to it? By
> >explaining on the merits why they believe he's wrong? Or by calling
> >him names -- a "gay-loving fanatic," say, or an "immoral pervert"?
>
> A third option: They could become intelligent enough to realize
> that SSM is 100% harmless and REVERSE their stance.
>
> > It's a no-brainer. Only a demagogue believes that the controversy over
> > same-sex marriage can be improved by hurling insults at those who
> > radically want to change the meaning of matrimony.
>
> Marriage is MARRIAGE. Gender composition is TRIVIAL. Thus,
> ending the irrational EXCLUSION of gays from it is *not* a "radical
> change."
distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and
one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 at 187 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1971)
summarily aff'd 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 (1972)
Michael
Topaz
"Normal sex begats kids, which is the whole moral point of the
necessity of marriage. Why do two male buttfuc*ers need to marry
except as a kind of social vanity?
Without the rules and obligations of marriage, humans are no
better than animals; we would live in social chaos since guys would
not stick around to take care of their kids. They would be going
around fuc*ing this ho and that ho and be having kids everywhere who
would have no father to take care of them.
this is why we need marriage. This is why marriage grew out of
sexuality. Sexuality without moral rules leads to animalistic chaos.
We want moral and social order. Marriage is crucial in this regard.
If there was no marriage, mankind would invent marriage to accomodate
social and moral needs of society.
Indeed, every human community have come up with something like
marriage.
It is a human necessity to regulate sexual energies and to provide
stability for new born kids…
If guys wanna live together and slap each other in the ass
don't tell me that I have to consider such behavior normal or
that it's sufficient to be regarded as the basis for marriage.
If no one slapped each other in the ass, humanity would go
on. Ass slapping is truly arbitrary, trivial, or gratuitous. but,
sexual reproduction is the very foundation of life. it is NOT
arbitrary. it is FUNDAMENTAL. If there is no sexual reproduction,
there is no human species. So marriage serves a very
important human function. Marriage regulates and accomodates the
fact of sexual reproduction. Since we wanna be more than animals, we
don't just wanna have sex . We also wanna create an orderly society.
to do this, we need moral rules to govern our sexual behavior.
marriage serves this purpose. Don't tell me that that two guys
fuc*ing each other in the ass is marriage.
If species don't fuc* and sexually reproduce, it dies out. sexual
reproduction is NECESSARY for humanity to go on. and sexual
reproduction happens between male and female. the point of marriage
is to remind us that this male/female relationship shouldn't only be
sexual but moral and social. if a couple produces kids, it's THEIR
responsibility to raise the kids. they created the kids, so it's their
responsiblity. marriage is about that moral obligation. it is not a
lifestyle game. hetero sex is real sex, real reproduction. it is
the essential basis as to why humans exist.
marriage is about the institutionalization of that fact.
hetero-sex is absolutely necessary for the species to go on. if there
was ONLY hetero-sex, humanity would go on. but, if there was only
homo-sex and no hetero-sex, humanity would die out in one generation.
heterosexuality is basic, essential, fundamental, etc. gay or homo
sex is unnecessary to humanity it is the behavior among sexually
defective individuals.
Marriage is an institution that is linked with healthy sexuality as it
must be because it is
about sexual morality. marriage is about obligations and duties and
bonds. when a couple enter into marriage, they are surrendering
certain freedoms and even rights. a man without kids can do as he
pleases with his money. but, a man with a wife and kids is morally
obligated--thru marriage vows--to spend his money for the welfare of
his wife and kids. it's not against the law to not feed hungry kids
of someone else; it is against the law to starve your own kids.
for example, you wear glasses and have poor eyesight. okay, that
doesn't mean you're a bad person. but, you shouldn't expect us to
consider poor eyesight as good or healthy. it is a defect, and one
must deal with it the best way one can.
problem is gay agenda folks will not even accept that homosexuality is
a defect. they say it's sexually just as legitimate as
heterosexuality. what is the rational or scientific basis for this?
what does ass-fuc*ing have to do with reproduction which is the
essential nature of sexuality?
all defects have disadvantages. that's why it's called a defect. if
you're deaf, you can't hear. if you're blind, you can't see. if you
have no limbs, you can't walk. if you're gay, you can't have kids
thru gay sex. but, they wanna force us to regard gayness as normal.
also, though they can't have kids thru gay sex, they want the right to
adopt children who were
created thru hetero-sex. think about it: gay couple want kids. but,
their defective sexuality
can't produce kids. but, they wanna pretend that it can. so they
adopt a kid and then say 'this is OUR kid' as though they brought the
kid into this world.
it is SEXUALLY unhealthy. a gay person can be healthy in many or
most other ways. he could be athletic, have good eating and sleeping
regimen. so, i'm not saying a gay person is entirely unhealthy.
also, a hetero person can be a fat hideous diseased slob. so, being
hetero doesn't mean that one is entirely healthy.
but, gay sexuality is unhealthy sexually. just think about it: a
sexual organ inserted into a shi**ing organ. would you stick your
wiener up a tube full of fecal matter?
deaf-mutes are defective in hearing, and we should accept that fact.
but, deaf-mute should NOT expect the rest of us to regard deaf-
muteness as normal or healthy and qualified for positions in society
that require hearing.
similarly..
homos are defective in sexuality, and we should accept that fact. but,
homos should NOT expect the rest of us to regard homosexuality as
normal or healthy and therefore as the basis for marriage.
gay sex is defective sex. we must not legitimiate the
defective, the unhealthy, the abnormal--if it offers no advantage.
I think when a guy has a dick but acts like he has a pussy, he's
messed up. The idea of clint eastwood in a bikini walking like a
fruitcake is NOT messed up????? it's just 'different'?
trans are gay. to be sure, not all gays are transvetite-ish. some
gays are very macho and masulin. but, they still don't emotionally
understand that their bodies were designed for sexual union with the
other sex. when two guys grab each other's balls and fuc* each other
in
the ass, that is messed up.
I aint talking of a creator when i say 'designed'. i'm talking
figuratively; i mean the organs developed for those purposes. look
at the human body and organs have purposes. if you don't believe me,
try to see thru your ears or hear thru your nose or walk on your hair
or eat with your ass."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Michael Ejercito
> "to see or not to see" wrote:
>
> "Normal sex begats kids, which is the whole moral point of the
> necessity of marriage. Why do two male buttfuc*ers need to marry
> except as a kind of social vanity?
>
They revealed their hand when the Massachusetts Senate certified a
question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, asking if a
proposed bill that EXPLICITLY provides "eligible same-sex couples the
opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and
responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws
of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage" and that
"spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits,
protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to
spouses in a marriage". Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004). Several pro-gay
groups filed amici briefs arguing that civil unions are
unconstitutional DESPITE the fact that the proposed bill EXPLICITLY
stated that "spouses in a civil union shall have all the same
benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are
granted to spouses in a marriage". In the GLAD brief, the GLAD
counsel admitted that "[t]he Goodridge plaintiffs understand the
Senate reads this Court’s declaration in Goodridge as limited to the
legal incidents of marriage rather than as
about access to marriage itself." GLAD Brief, Opinions of the Justices
to the Senate, at 11. And yet they called the civil union scheme
"separate and UNEQUAL" and a form of "SEGREGATION", even though there
was no physical separation, Id. at 21, and claimed that the injury
caused by civil unions is denial of the "social recognition" of
marriage. Id. at 24 See also Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12
(claiming that the proposed bill is unconstitutional because civil
unions would "mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their
heterosexual counterparts and diminish their status in the community"
regardless of whether they provided "the same benefits, protections,
rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a
marriage") id. at 13 (claiming that civil unions "would not constitute
equality, because their
relationships still would not be recognized by the rest of society as
being as valued as heterosexual
relationships.")
Michael