Federal Judge Rules Against Same-Sex Couple In Puerto Rico, Dismisses Case

Dishonesty is often the sign of knowing one's position is indefensible.

 

Ha! Homosexuality is equivalent to slavery? What kind of twisted logic is that? It's especially funny since your party was the party of slavery for so many years, and the party of Jim Crow, poll taxes, lynchings, segregation and the KKK.

Nice try.

I think the courts will eventually overturn these "marriages" because they violate the 1st Amendment freedom of religion. You guys have pushed the envelope too far. There are many more Christians than gays and you can't force them to give up their religion for a stupid redefinition of marriage.

 

In your dreams. That is what is wrong with you guys. You think about gay sex so much, you think everyone thinks the same as you. We don't. Most people are normal and have normal sexual urges. Women are beautiful. I love all of them. Except the ones that look like men.

 

An appeal to tradition is only wrong when 1) the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds; and 2) the circumstances may have changed. I would say that the grounds for the tradition were not incorrect, nor have the circumstances changed.

Talk about using logical fallacies! Slavery is equivalent to homosexuality? Your the second person making that argument tonight. It's particularly funny considering the democrat parties record on slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, segregation and civil rights. But this is what is known as a false equivalence fallacy.

Yes, this is true in some cases. But not in the case of the definition of marriage. Most people still consider the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But regardless of how popular the idea may become, only a man and a woman can mate. It is a biological thing. You know, like a plug and a socket. Marriage serves a purpose in society.

The laws and the government are servants to the people, not the other way around. The people decide which laws they are willing to live under. They should not be imposed upon the people either by a tyrannical executive or judicial fiat.

Archaic? People have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. They don't have to give that up because you consider it an archaic belief. They have a right to practice their religious beliefs outside the walls of the church. And once again, comparing blacks to homosexuality is insulting to blacks. Please refrain.

It is not just an appeal to tradition but a core principle of their fundamental right to freedom of religion. Yikes! Equating religious beliefs with slavery and now rape?

Forcing ministers, photographers, bakers, florists or anyone else to provide services to gays is an infringement of their rights. No church is being forced to perform them, but couples like this might be:

It is only a matter of time until the leftists and the gay lobby go after all churches.

Strawman fallacy: I never said it was a legal fact. I said they have a right to a mother and a father. I meant morally, not legally. Ideally, a child should have a mother and a father. It is best for the child's welfare and psychological well-being.

This is only true if gays were being excluded from a right to marry as a form of punishment. In truth, gays can get married just like heterosexuals. They've done it for decades.

I still fail to see the wisdom of intentionally inflicting harm on a child by depriving him or her opportunity to be raised in a traditional family unit.

Is it not a fact that gay marriage did not even become a legal issue until about 20 years ago? Is it not a fact that homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association just 40 years ago? What facts did I get wrong?

Tell me where I'm wrong?

 

There is literally not a single true sentence in your post.

 

How stupid is that. Gay's right to marry will be reversed by the courts based of freedom of religion??!! She doesn't seem to know that many gay people are Christian and that many Christians support marriage equality.

Forced to give up their religion ?? Seriously?

 

I don't have a "party". If this were a thread about the legality of weapons, we would no doubt be on the same side. I actually think for myself.

Your freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to impose your religious beliefs on people who don't share them. If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married. That someone else does has nothing to do with you and your freedom to worship as you please. 32 states now have marriage freedom. Soon it will be 50, and it will fade from the headlines. You might as well get used to that.

 

I have a lot of weird sexual interests, and I can assure you that being attracted to both sexes is the least weird.

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

I see you knowledge of fallacies is about as good as anything else .. in other words very little.

Here why don't you actually read what an appeal to tradition is before making inane assumptions like the one above - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Oh please do show me where I say slavery is equivalent to homosexuality, this is nothing more than you yet again attempting to misrepresent another person comments, something you do a lot.

You were the one who said " Marriage has always been defined as a union of one man and one woman and it still is" and " It has also been defined as such in law for many decades. " do you deny that the same was true of slavery?

BTW, marriage is no longer defined as a union between a man and a woman, I suggest you look up the legal definition of marriage, Blacks legal dictionary would be a good start - marriage has not been defined as between a man and woman since edition 9.

The definition of marriage has certainly changed as far as the legal definition is concerned .. here take a look yourself from Blacks Law Dictionary 9th Edition (Published 2009)



This continued usage of procreation as an argument against SSM is pure crap, it has been thrown out of almost every court room and yet people like you keep beating the same drum hoping the tune will change.. it won't.

Also you do know that the definition of mate in the context you are attempting to use it means "A person’s husband, wife, or other sexual partner" - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mate

What a load of horse crap, you do know that the USA is a Constitutional Federal Republic ie you elect members to represent your views .. however, if those views go against the constitution it doesn't matter at all what the popular view is .. guess what the anti-SSM views are against your constitution as has been shown numerous times.

So if the people decided that slavery was ok, they could ignore the constitutional laws against it and start buying slaves again .. what a load of crap.

Your knowledge of what words mean is outstandingly poor, archaic can mean "very old" - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/archaic are you now saying that religious views are not "very old"?

The 1st amendment also means freedom FROM religion and no where in my response do I say that people should give up their religious beliefs, so yet again more misrepresentation from you, neither did I say that people cannot practice their religious beliefs outside of a church .. what they cannot do is to offer a service or product to the public and then refuse to offer that service or product to a select group based on their religious beliefs, and if you cannot comprehend that I am not comparing blacks to homosexuals on a physical level but on a principle and equality level then you are more indoctrinated than I first thought.

When people like you stop discriminating against homosexuals in exactly the same way blacks were discriminated against then you might have some moral ground, until then you don't.

Well as it is apparent you have no idea what an appeal to tradition is, you would think that way .. educate yourself before making more foolish comments.

As they should be for their blatant discrimination .. what part of offering a service or product to people do you not understand. Your example is a BUSINESS not a church or a private club .. if you don't know the legal difference then I suggest you educate yourself.

Won't happen, to do so would be an infringement of the constitution.

Considering the number of fallacies you commit in almost every comment you make, you stating a strawman is hypocritical .. what your moral viewpoint is has no bearing on legal point, your morals DO NOT over rule other peoples morals, nor do your morals over rule the constitution.

That comment is the biggest bag of horse crap ever written.

Seen this argument so many times it is boring.. it is exactly the same argument used against inter-racial marriages, blacks can marry who ever they want as long as it's not a white person.

and I fail to the see the wisdom of intentionally inflicting harm on a child by depriving him or her the opportunity to be raised in a family full stop, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Now you show some facts, everything prior to the above has not been, and you cannot even get the "facts" right when you do attempt to provide them.

Gay marriage became an issue in the USA in 1971 - 43 years ago - in Baker vs Nelson and the change in the APA designation of homosexuality was due to increase research showing that it was not a mental issue .. just as other advances in medical knowledge have changed to designation of other so called mental illnesses.

In pretty much everything you post.

 

Marriage is a purely private Act that must be commuted public for full faith and credit purposes.

 

Interesting. You find someone speculating that you might be gay to actually be an insult. I have had people assume I am gay because I am so vocally pro-SSM. I'm not, I'm a happily married straight male. But I didn't find it insulting. That you do says a lot about you, and none of it good.

 

Get ready for the big smack down sista!

As for who's mind is on gay sex, it seems to me it's the homophobes and the bigots who can't see that we are talking about real people with real lives :

 

Read this and tell me where I am wrong:

So if you can follow this logic argument, an appeal to tradition is only wrong when one or both of the above highlighted statements is true. So, in otherwords, as I stated, if it is not based on incorrect grounds and circumstances have not changed, then the appeal to tradition is not a logic fallacy.

Your understanding of the English language is wanting if you do not understand the argument I have made above.

I really don't have to show again how you drew an equivalency between homosexuality and slavery because for one, people can go back and read for themselves and two, you do the very same thing in the very next sentence.

The fact that you and I are debating the accepted meaning of the word "marriage" is all the proof needed that the acceptance of your definition of the term is not universally accepted.

I'm not sure what your point is on the first part of that poorly worded sentence is. Strict Constitutional constructionists would disagree with you on your second point.

Slavery was make illegal by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. People cannot ignore that. I never said they could, thus, you are once again presenting yet another strawman argument. I like how your childish laughing emoticons are a tip off to a bad logic fallacy to follow.

There is no Constitutional Amendment requiring people to recognized same sex marriage, nor one that has repealed the 1st Amendment to the Constitution to my knowledge.

My understanding of the word archaic is not in question. But you description and dismissal of peoples principals of their faith basically amounts to a reverse appeal to antiquity argument (also known as appeal to novelty) by saying these are old beliefs which by the fact that they are old beliefs they are therefore no longer valid.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words, "freedom from religion." This is the worst case of double speak I have seen. First you say that people can practice their religious beliefs, then say they can't based on their religious beliefs. Then you say you are not comparing blacks to homosexuals and go on to compare blacks to homosexuals.

Here you are assuming that they are offering a service to include your definition of marriage. They are not.

You just can't keep away from the blacks = homosexual false equivalency fallacy.

I think I've demonstrated that I have a superior knowledge of it over you since you weren't capable of understanding my argument as to why it does not apply in this case.

I don't know what part of homosexuality is against their religion you don't understand, but you can't force someone to accept homosexuality against their beliefs. I also couldn't provide a better proof of your willingness to violate individuals right to practice their 1st Amendment right to religious freedom that you just did by your own admission. So the punishment for violating their rights would have to be fines and or imprisonment. This is what is known as religious persecution whereby people are punished for their religious beliefs. Would you have these people imprisoned?

It's already started. Ever hear of Little Sisters of the Poor?

Morality in general. Society must live by a set of morals. The problem is the left is prone to moral equivalency and subjectivity.

I think studies have been done.

Umpteenth time you have deployed this false equivalence fallacy. Stop.

You could have come to a full stop after the word "wisdom."

 

I don't think you know what bigotry means, but you are a practitioner. There is no such thing as homophobia. The rest of your post I ignored because, you know, I don't argue with people who's only uses ad hominem attacks.

 

It is an insult. Homosexuality is sexual deviancy. If you don't mind people calling you that, neither do I. I could also couldn't care less about your opinion of how it reflects on me. This is typical liberalism and judgmental hypocrisy. You don't know me and have no right to judge me. FO.

 

You ignored it because you're afraid that you might learn something, but I don't actually think that you have anything to worry about in that regard. Show us where I leveled a personal attack at you in that post. The only reason why you would think that I did is if you're one of the people who I referred to. Are you?

Care to give an opinion as to what will happen on appeal? That is what this thread is about. I hope I'm not asking to much of your intellect.

 

One person's deviancy is another person's definition of a fun Saturday night. And it's none of your damn business, as long as nobody forces you to participate.

 

You can call be a bigot all you want. It just shows you ignorance and lack of self awareness. . I hate bigotry and yes, I hate bigots. I hate that people&#8217;s lives are messed with for no other reason than there are some who &#8220;disapprove&#8221; of them or see them as &#8220;different&#8221; But all hatred is not equal. My hatred is in response to other&#8217;s hatred and for that reason it is objective and justified. Is it not justifiable for the oppressed to hate their oppressor? Should the abused feel anything but disdain for the abuser? We all deplore violence, but do we condemn those who are attacked for defending themselves with violence?

What is your hate in response to? What excuse do you have? I realize that you may not recognize it as hate, that you may not feel hate in your heart. But, I have to wonder, what do you feel, if anything, when you advocate the denial of basic rights to people while not even being able to articulate a rational reason for doing so? What do you call that if not hate?

Yes, I will bludgeon those who seek to oppress gays just as they bludgeon gays and their advocates for seeking rights, for seeking &#8211;yes demanding-equality. The difference is that I rely on the truth, while the opponents of equality rely on lies, scare tactics appeals to ignorance and other logical fallacies, because that&#8217;s all that they have. That&#8217;s all that YOU have.

No one has come up with a viable argument to deny gays equal rights. There is no legal, moral, philosophical or pragmatic reason whatsoever. I am more certain of this that of any other thing in life. There is no justification for the denial of human rights to any group who just wants to live their lives and be who they are.

Be prepared. It will be over soon. Read my signature line!

 

Which part of this is not true: "It's especially funny since your party was the party of slavery for so many years, and the party of Jim Crow, poll taxes, lynchings, segregation and the KKK."?

 

More insinuations, ad hominem attacks and now veiled threats of violence. Nice. Chill. I won't argue the point with you anymore because you are not in control.

 

The only ones being imposed upon are Christians who are being force to betray their religious principles on the alter of political correctness.

 

You don't get to force your religious views on people who don't share them. If you religion says same sex marriage is bad, simple, don't get same sex married. But that doesn't give you the right to tell others, who don't share your religion (or your interpretation of it) that they should do as you say. Neither you, nor your religion, are that important.

 

*too

What about the first sentence of this post?

 

Again you prove that you don't know what an ad hominem is and if you think that I threatened you, you have proved that your paranoid. What about that legal analysis of what will happen in the Puerto Rico case on appeal? Give it a shot.

 

All of it.