House votes to create sexual deviant rights and violates constitutional limitations

Jul 2008
18,880
12,687
Virginia Beach, VA
My opinion is just as good as yours or the black robes that decide such matters. And trust me, I don't give a damn about their opinions on sex either dolt.

There are problems with polygamy? There are problems with gay sex as well.

Did you know that the gay population accounts for under 10% of the population but also accounts for well over 60% of all AIDS cases in the US every year?

You can sit back and pick apart any group, such as straight couples that have over a 50% chance of divorcing. Do you know what divorce does to children? You may as well throw them in a wood chipper.

The bottom line is, these same people are free to have relationships with each other whether the state acknowledges them or not, and problems will occur no matter who engages in these relationships. Why then are polygamists singled out as the only group that is "bad".

Again, you either let all adults make such decisions for themselves or you should get out of the marriage business altogether, which is what I think the state should do.

A secular state should not be giving the thumbs up or down on sex. That is insane.
No, your opinion is not “just as good”.
An opinion is only as “good” as the facts used to formulate it. Your “facts” are not good so your opinion is not good.
 
Likes: foundit66
Jul 2015
2,699
1,139
USA
No, your opinion is not “just as good”.
An opinion is only as “good” as the facts used to formulate it. Your “facts” are not good so your opinion is not good.
Speaking about opinions, you did write:

"The legislature cannot just make up a state interest. They cannot, for example, decide that not allowing gay people to marry is a state interest."

Where in our federal Constitution have state legislatures been forbidden to issue marriage licenses with a requirement the couple receiving said license be limited to one male and one female? Where is your evidence to support your opinion?

JWK



The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.
 
Nov 2005
8,958
3,437
California
My opinion is just as good as yours or the black robes that decide such matters. And trust me, I don't give a damn about their opinions on sex either dolt.
No.
That's one of the problems of today's society. People who think their OPINION is just as good as anybody else's.
It's the hallmark of somebody who wants to devolve issues down to a complete lack of verifiable quality. Climate change? Some guy who didn't finish high school has an opinion "just as good" as a scientist


There are problems with polygamy? There are problems with gay sex as well.
And there are problems with straight sex as well. I would be fascinated if you could explain any actual "problems with gay sex" which are unique to gay sex / not seen in straight sex.
.
But we're not talking about just "problems with ...", but rather legitimate state interests.


Did you know that the gay population accounts for under 10% of the population but also accounts for well over 60% of all AIDS cases in the US every year?
You're talking about male-to-male sex.
Do you appreciate that the female-to-female sex contraction is zero? Which makes straight sex riskier than lesbian sex...

Blacks/African Americans accounted for 42.4% of HIV infections.
Looking just at women, black women make up 60% of new infection diagnosis.
Does that mean anything regarding race and sex for restriction?
Does that mean anything regarding race and marriage?

The reality is that the vast majority of gays do not have HIV or AIDS. It's only a very small fraction of gays which have HIV.
If you were interested in discriminating against all people who have HIV, then that could be one thing. But your approach is obviously to try to invoke some sort of Jim Crow era type situation where you malign the entire group based on an attribute that is only amongst a small portion of the group.


You can sit back and pick apart any group, such as straight couples that have over a 50% chance of divorcing. Do you know what divorce does to children? You may as well throw them in a wood chipper.
I've got a nephew who is a child of divorce. He's a doctor now. I guess he must be a sucky doctor?
Or maybe you are hyperbolizing reality on this...


The bottom line is, these same people are free to have relationships with each other whether the state acknowledges them or not, and problems will occur no matter who engages in these relationships. Why then are polygamists singled out as the only group that is "bad".
I already answered your question.
Google "lost boys polygamy" and get back to me when you understand the actual situation...


Again, you either let all adults make such decisions for themselves or you should get out of the marriage business altogether, which is what I think the state should do.
If you create your own state, you are free to implement such a policy.
But that's not how it's run in the existing 50 states.


A secular state should not be giving the thumbs up or down on sex. That is insane.
Part of the problem is that some people look at marriage as "approval", when it's not that.
I think the true root of that is that homophobes tried to deny marital rights as a sign of their disapproval.
Rights are granted based on the existence of people. Rights are not denied based on simply a state thinking "thumbs up or down".
It's entirely legal for a man to have two women he regularly has sex with and treats as his wife.
 
Likes: leekohler2
May 2018
6,643
4,491
Chicago
No.
That's one of the problems of today's society. People who think their OPINION is just as good as anybody else's.
It's the hallmark of somebody who wants to devolve issues down to a complete lack of verifiable quality. Climate change? Some guy who didn't finish high school has an opinion "just as good" as a scientist



And there are problems with straight sex as well. I would be fascinated if you could explain any actual "problems with gay sex" which are unique to gay sex / not seen in straight sex.
.
But we're not talking about just "problems with ...", but rather legitimate state interests.



You're talking about male-to-male sex.
Do you appreciate that the female-to-female sex contraction is zero? Which makes straight sex riskier than lesbian sex...

Blacks/African Americans accounted for 42.4% of HIV infections.
Looking just at women, black women make up 60% of new infection diagnosis.
Does that mean anything regarding race and sex for restriction?
Does that mean anything regarding race and marriage?

The reality is that the vast majority of gays do not have HIV or AIDS. It's only a very small fraction of gays which have HIV.
If you were interested in discriminating against all people who have HIV, then that could be one thing. But your approach is obviously to try to invoke some sort of Jim Crow era type situation where you malign the entire group based on an attribute that is only amongst a small portion of the group.



I've got a nephew who is a child of divorce. He's a doctor now. I guess he must be a sucky doctor?
Or maybe you are hyperbolizing reality on this...



I already answered your question.
Google "lost boys polygamy" and get back to me when you understand the actual situation...



If you create your own state, you are free to implement such a policy.
But that's not how it's run in the existing 50 states.



Part of the problem is that some people look at marriage as "approval", when it's not that.
I think the true root of that is that homophobes tried to deny marital rights as a sign of their disapproval.
Rights are granted based on the existence of people. Rights are not denied based on simply a state thinking "thumbs up or down".
It's entirely legal for a man to have two women he regularly has sex with and treats as his wife.
We all know what he's really trying to do. And that is, argue that since polygamy is not legal, then same sex marriage shouldn't be either. It's a tactic as old as the right wing itself.
 
Likes: foundit66
Jul 2015
2,699
1,139
USA
.
But we're not talking about just "problems with ...", but rather legitimate state interests.
And advancing each state's interests has been left to each state's legislature, within the confines of their state and our federal constitutions, and that includes with regard to distinctions in law based upon sex.

JWK



The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.
 
Jul 2015
2,699
1,139
USA
johnwk said:
You could have at least addressed the content of the post.
JWK

You have some gall making that comment after you so routinely fail to follow through on that advice yourself...
:rolleyes:
There you go again, making stuff up.

Oh, and BTW, I am still waiting for you to engage in a dialogue and respond to THIS POST in which I wrote the following to you:


I see you have brought up an invention of the Supreme Court, the "intermediate scrutiny" test, which is not used to determine whether or not a law passed by a legislature is within the four walls of a constitution, state or federal, but is instead used by the court to judge the appropriateness of a law, which I might add is a subjective question and one solely, and exclusively, delegated to the people's elected representatives.

One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to subjugate and overcome the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to a question having nothing to do with its constitutionality. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and its prerogative, and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.

For example, imaging for a moment that a black male was denied employment as a prison guard by a local state government based upon his race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring the black male which is nothing more than a subjective opinion. This is what these tests are about, creating a platform for progressives on the Court to ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and impose their whims and fancies upon the people using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!

By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started, with impunity, to ignore the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and went on to impose its own ideas of social justice and court-ordered social reforms using these “tests”. Some of the important cases which demonstrate the Court’s assumption of legislative power by using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), and Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

It is also important to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, were both very active in these cases and assisted the court in engineering clever words and phrases in conjunction with “tests” which were designed to parse words and subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

When Ginsburg became a member of the Supreme Court the ground work had already been laid with her help in establishing these despotic tests as part of the Court’s arsenal used by its progressive members to make the Constitution mean whatever they wished it to mean.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and the invented tests in question, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to the intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, to this very day, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)

Your desire to impose your personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law, or have our judicial branch of government do your dirty work for you and impose its personal predilections as the rule of law using these "tests", is an affront to our very system of government and the separation of powers doctrine, and are used to allow the court to second guess the wisdom and appropriateness of legislation, which certainly is not the courts function. Why do you support this type of judicial tyranny?

JWK
 
Nov 2005
8,958
3,437
California
You could have at least addressed the content of the post.
You have some gall making that comment after you so routinely fail to follow through on that advice yourself...
:rolleyes:
There you go again, making stuff up.
I invite the viewing audience to go back to page 13 and earlier in this thread to see what I am talking about. Plenty of examples of me posting information and johnwk responds to just one phrase or one sentence out of the post.
It was on this page that I realized that further conversation was futile and parroted his tactic back at him...
 
Jul 2015
2,699
1,139
USA
I invite the viewing audience to go back to page 13 and earlier in this thread to see what I am talking about. Plenty of examples of me posting information and johnwk responds to just one phrase or one sentence out of the post.
It was on this page that I realized that further conversation was futile and parroted his tactic back at him...
There you go again making an accusation without being specific. Now that you have cited page 13, how about being specific?

Oh, BTW, I am still waiting for you to engage in a dialogue and respond to THIS POST

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.
 

Similar Discussions