# It's easier to condemn homosexuality



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying.  Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...



I support rolling back to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Just because a corrupt justice like Kennedy sold out America, doesn't make it right.. Just lawful

There are many things lawful that are harmful and dangerous, The way the red carpet is being rolled out for the queers is over the top. A queer society is a unhealthy one full of disease, suicide and depression.

Why a person chooses to puff peter when god intended otherwise, just shows the continued decay of our society. Allowing someone the choice to talk funny, make-out in public, just because little kids in the park need to learn that two guys who look like their dad and uncle, are swapping spit on the park bench..... and guess what... nothing is wrong with it. Just like a hetero couple kissing.  Yea, everyone thinks its normal seeing this display of perversion, two guys making out in public

But as we know, they have no class and rub it in your face.

Protect your kids and grand kids from the public display of the homo life-style.

I just give the queers dirty looks then shake my head

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?



That's what they do when facts escape them

-Geaux


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

You mean like gay tv shows hurt yours?

Heres a novel idea....

If the shows suck, theyll fail. Pussy.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?



Best paragraph ever! 

"One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough."

If I had a brain like yours...I'd be a freaky nutbag too.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

When are we going to treat bigots and haters the way we used to treat homosexuals?

Drive them into the shadows, deny them employment, make them afraid to show who they really are

Wait a minute...we already do that


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> When are we going to treat bigots and haters the way we used to treat homosexuals?
> 
> Drive them into the shadows, deny them employment, make them afraid to show who they really are
> 
> Wait a minute...we already do that



No we don't, because the opposition of homosexuality is not bigotry

-Geaux


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

G.T. said:


> You mean like gay tv shows hurt yours?
> 
> Heres a novel idea....
> 
> If the shows suck, theyll fail. Pussy.



Oh, they don't hurt me. I am probably one of the most tolerant people you'll ever meet. I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy... didn't bother me or him one little bit. Like I said... plenty of gay friends and family members who I love and adore. But as tolerant as I am, I have my limits. I'm about done with my tolerance level when it comes to accepting things. If you can't live your gay life without infringing on me, go fuck yourself. I'm tired of defending myself, being called names, ridiculed and scorned because I won't stand for you trashing the Constitution in order to legitimize your homosexual behavior. Enough is enough!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.

Hays are all over the tv, oh noes! (Dont watch)

Gays get to get married, oh noes! (Worry about your own apparently unfulfilling marriages)

Gay gay GAY!!!! What can I do I HATE THIS!!!

**meanwhile to feel better, like the racists do with the "but but i have black friends" line, preface your bigotted crybaby rant ny saying you love your gay franzz. 


This shit is hysterical, if not.........sad and disgusting.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

I wonder if boss wore his gay toga from his avatar in the tent, and this thread isnt inspired by his bigotry whine but by his shame of perhaps committing rlly gay acts.....

Hmm.

Dont worry though boss, because of better people like us, the bigots will continue to be shunned the fuck down to taboo.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > When are we going to treat bigots and haters the way we used to treat homosexuals?
> ...


 
Shit

Remember the good ole days when you guys could chase fags through the streets and beat them up?  Then you would blame the gays and nobody would do anything about it?

Looks like the tide has turned....bigots and haters such as yourself are now societies faggots


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like gay tv shows hurt yours?
> ...



That's awesome! You actually slept next to a pole smoking homo? 

Did you bring up this subject as the campfire glowed in the night? Did you tell him that you were afraid his kind would force you to suck cock and take a dildo up the ass? Did you explain to him how oppressed you feel now that he can marry the person he loves? 

Didja?


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

G.T. said:


> What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.



No, what you are witnessing is otherwise tolerant and rational people becoming frustrated because they can't ever seem to do enough for gays. You keep pushing and pushing for something you're never going to have...

You see, what you really want is to be accepted as normal... but you're not normal, are you? You realize what you do is wrong and abnormal for human beings and you seek to have your abnormal behavior accepted and legitimized... but you know that it never will be. No amount of tolerance will ever suffice, you'll keep on pushing until society pushes back, and they will.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.
> ...



Yo GT......da Boss thinks you is gay.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Yeah! And when society pushes back......watch out! The message boards will be BUSY!!!!!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I know one thing.....hes never seen tail like I have with that flambuoyant assed toga he is wearing, and his whiny bitch bigotted attitude. Thats a fact


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Let me know when punching out a homo fag equates to burning a cross in a yard

We'll wait  

-Geaux


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



We had quite the lengthy conversation about gay marriage and he is of the same opinion I am... it's shouldn't be any of government's business who people marry or what people define as marriage. 

No... I am afraid "your kind" is going to have to be put down hard because you won't allow people to merely "tolerate" you. That's not good enough... they have to accept and approve of your behavior. Endorse it... Sign their name confirming they accept it... and still, that's not good enough! It's never going to be good enough because what you seek is impossible for us to deliver.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

What's it like? Is being a true nutbag bigot in 2015 America like having your head stuck in a vice? I mean......the hopeless whining! It's awesome.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

I wonder if Boss has sent mrs davis his.fan boy love letter, yet.....?

Mebbe he can call us up for tonights show and we could let him rant his bigotry to his hearts desire for.all of usmb to witness.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.
> ...


 
What is "enough" for the gays?

Not firing them or denying them housing?
Not kicking them out of the military?
Allowing them to openly say who they are?
Permitting them to marry the person they love?

Where was your breaking point?


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> What's it like? Is being a true nutbag bigot in 2015 America like having your head stuck in a vice? I mean......the hopeless whining! It's awesome.



Again, it's not bigotry. That's what the left wants to call it as its a queer race card which fails on multiple counts.

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


 
Seems the same to me


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm not gay, bro. And I don't feel any pressure from gays for me to deliver anything. I wonder what it is that really bugs you? Do you get a little chubby when you watch Doogie Hauser? Is that it?


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



When will the left redefine 'person'?

I'm sure its coming when they decide that porking a drunk chicken is 'normal'

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

G.T. said:


> I wonder if Boss has sent mrs davis his.fan boy love letter, yet.....?
> 
> Mebbe he can call us up for tonights show and we could let him rant his bigotry to his hearts desire for.all of usmb to witness.



If he does.....you'll have to put up with my coughing. I wouldn't miss that shit for anything.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > What's it like? Is being a true nutbag bigot in 2015 America like having your head stuck in a vice? I mean......the hopeless whining! It's awesome.
> ...


I think its clearly man.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are sure of it, huh?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 
Porking a drunk chicken is animal abuse and is a crime in this country
Consensual sex between two adults is not


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Seems to me, we've done ALL those things and still, we're being called bigots and homophobes. Unless we totally accept your behavior and restructure society so that gay people are treated superior to anyone else, you're not going to be happy. I don't even know if that would make you happy... I think you can't BE happy. You know what you are doing is wrong and you need validation... constantly... never-ending.  Well, I am tired of placating you and pandering to your needs. Grow the fuck up and accept that some people don't approve of your sexual deviant behavior.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I realize this

-Geaux


G.T. said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Fine with me.. But but its not bigotry

-Geaux
===============

*Opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry*

In the heated rhetoric of the debate, some gay marriage advocates have alleged that opposition to gay marriage is the same as bigotry and prejudice.

Such terms are inappropriate. Actually, such words are being abused by gay righters to capitalize on the nationwide concern focused on racism.

Opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in the personal animosities that are characteristic of bigotry but in reliance on the Bible as the authority for a Christian lifestyle.

Anti-gay Christians feel that the scores of Bible references on homosexuality cannot be swept under the rug on the general premise that love supersedes all Biblical lifestyle issues. To accept this argument would negate all of Apostle Paul’s teachings and Christianity would become a religion without any enduring principles of morality.

Opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Bullshit.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > When are we going to treat bigots and haters the way we used to treat homosexuals?
> ...


People like you sure work to make that the case, tho.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So is two guys punting each other on 4th down. Hell, they'll punt on 3rd down.

-Geaux
------
*12 states still ban sodomy a decade after court ruling*

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A dozen states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books 10 years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled they are unconstitutional.

One such state is Louisiana, where gay rights groups contend police have used anti-sodomy laws to target gay men. But state lawmakers sided with religious and conservative groups in refusing to repeal the law last week.


12 states still ban sodomy a decade after court ruling


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You think RW is gay too?


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



People do go to jail for being accessories you know....

-Geaux


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


I disagree, its definitely bigotry. Leaving my feelings of religions being bullshit aside, too.
........i think i heard the statistic that only some 2% of americans practice their religion as its written and the rest pick and choose the convenient parts.

I flounder in the seas of bullshit that flood my way


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> I'm not gay, bro. And I don't feel any pressure from gays for me to deliver anything. I wonder what it is that really bugs you? Do you get a little chubby when you watch Doogie Hauser? Is that it?



No, you're NOT gay, you're a flaming hypocrite who uses homosexuality to insult and denigrate others as you did here. You don't really give two shits about gay people, you just exploit them for political reasons, like the low-life piece of shit you are.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

Speaking of low life pieces of shit......

Lololol


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's because Christians are being assimilated by attrition. Slowly becoming what others have accepted. The attack on those who oppose gay marriage is compounding... I mean.... like compound interest multiplies, so to is the leftist culture.

-Geaux


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


Allowing gays equal access to marry their loved ones should not be considered leftist and is not an attack on religion because govt here is not a theocracy.

And kim davis wasnt taken out of her religion by force by anyone. She voluntarily holds that govt job and can leave whenever she pleases geaux.

You cannot dictate your job to your employer and say "cuz cuz...religion."

You gunna go with that, and allow muslims to dictate that all women in the office wear burquas?  

Its completely ridiculous, CHILDISH even. And her golden parachute will be built by the simple minded who fall into this simplistic thinking, so she will be well off because of all of this.


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 16, 2015)

Homosexuality would be easier to tolerate if certain ones did not try to ram their sexuality down everyone's throats.

- Coming out?  Coming out should be the start of living day to day the way you are / want, NOT declaring it to the world, as if any of us care - wearing T-shirts, engaging in over-the-top public displays of affection just to attempt to shock people, etc. I am a heterosexual, don't go out of my way to shove It in people's faces, and unless you make your sexuality an issue...almost no one else will either. Most of the gays I have known....I didn't know they were until they confided in me, otherwise I would have never known. They weren't trying to hide it, there just wasn't any 'neon' indicators as they went about their daily lives.

- FORCING It on Others:  Congratulations, you're gay. That should not mean I have to forfeit by religious beliefs and convictions because you prefer same-sex partners. If I am a pastor, I should not be forced to hold a ceremony for you when it is against my religion. If I am a bakery and I don't want to cater your wedding because of my beliefs - as one GLBT group said - go find another Bakery. There are lots of them that will cater it...but instead FORCING that one to comply with YOU demands was more important.

Trying to ram it down everyone's throats and demand that it is the 'norm' (which is in disagreement) is not acceptable. If I teach my kids how our faith says it is a sin / not right, I don't want a teacher at school trying to teach my kids that it's perfectly fine. I want that teacher instead to teach my kid about math, science, English, etc... 

Congrats, you're gay...I don't care. It is not my job to judge. We are all people - black, white, gay, straight - when we get cut we all bleed the same...So go about your life living your life like the rest of us, and stop pi$$ing people off by shoving it in their face,  acting like your preference is a world-changer.


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> That's because Christians are being assimilated by attrition. Slowly becoming what others have accepted. The attack on those who oppose gay marriage is compounding... I mean.... like compound interest multiplies, so to is the leftist culture.



Exactly, and it's not going to stop anytime soon. They don't intend to stop demanding and forcing their lifestyle down our throats against our will. One of these days, I can see them cheering a law making it acceptable for gay people to molest heterosexuals and daring anyone to stand against that out of fear of being called names. It's exactly where society is headed. Nothing is good enough for them. Those of us who have tolerated them are starting to wonder if it wouldn't have been an easier road to just condemn their acts and run them out of society on a rail. I hate to be like that but it's where I think they've pushed this. And ironically, I don't think it's necessarily the gay community behind all this... I think it's secular liberals with a political agenda against Christians. THAT is who is fueling all this controversy. They don't give the first rip about gays, they want to destroy the religious foundations of society... THAT's what this is all about.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

Aaahahahahahaaaa

Talk about unhinged and afraid!!! Jeebus


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
Calling people homosexual has been the ultimate insult for their whole lives. They have not figured out that the insult has lost its power


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Allowing gays equal access to marry their loved ones...



They HAVE equal access to marry... MARRIAGE is the union of a man and woman! It's nothing else! It can't BE anything else! It's not about a sexual preference or behavior, it's what it is... the union of a man and woman in matrimony.  What gays are denied it the right to call something "marriage" that doesn't fit the definition. We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > That's because Christians are being assimilated by attrition. Slowly becoming what others have accepted. The attack on those who oppose gay marriage is compounding... I mean.... like compound interest multiplies, so to is the leftist culture.
> ...


 
I can see you still maintain your "yuck" factor towards homosexuals. You prefer the days when they were in the closet and were fine as long as they kept quiet about it.

We used to hear the same argument about blacks. Hollywood was pushing them in movies. They were given starring roles where the public was used to only whites getting those roles. There was outrage if blacks and whites kissed or had a relationship

Took a long time, but those attitudes have slowly changed.
Same will happen with gays and their relationships will become no big deal

That is what you fear


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 16, 2015)

The definition of Traditional Marriage, the union of 1 man and 1 woman, is the sticking point.

Traditional marriage is / has been seen as the (primarily religious) union of a man and woman, especially in a ceremony where two people ask God's blessing on the union. Christians know the Bible disapproves of homosexuality and that God would not give his blessing on such a union. So this is like 'blasphemy' to Christians and believers of 'traditional marriage'.

Problem 'easily' (no pun intended) solved:
- Create the term 'Civil Union', an act of 2 same sex people united as a couple, thereby qualifying them for the same exact government-provided benefits/perks granted by the government to 'traditional marriage' couples.

The problem with this is that many in the GLBT community aren't happy with being allowed to legally be joined as a couple and to receive those same benefits...they want to FORCE 'traditional marriage' believers to forfeit that belief and allow them to have the exact same status/institution of 'marriage'....much in the same way pro-abortionists want to FORCE those who believe in pro-choice to pay for their elective surgeries and the butchering of children that could live outside the womb. Being allowed to have as many abortions as they want is not enough - they also demand those who don't believe in it fund it, too.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.
> ...


I still don't get why YOU are frustrated.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> The definition of Traditional Marriage, the union of 1 man and 1 woman, is the sticking point.
> 
> Traditional marriage is / has been seen as the (primarily religious) union of a man and woman, especially in a ceremony where two people ask God's blessing on the union. Christians know the Bible disapproves of homosexuality and that God would not give his blessing on such a union. So this is like 'blasphemy' to Christians and believers of 'traditional marriage'.
> 
> ...


 
The easier solution is to allow churches to define who they will and will not marry. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they do not have to

What they can't do is force their religious opinions about marriage on the government


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Allowing gays equal access to marry their loved ones...
> ...



The GLBT community is storming that 'gate', my friend, demanding that this definition ('Marriage') be changed. If you believe in the sanctity of the traditional definition of marriage, you are not a 'purist' or a 'traditionalist. No, now that means you are a 'Homophobe' because you won't give them what they want and oppose what they want.  Welcome to the new 'fundamentally changed' DIVIDED States of America!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Allowing gays equal access to marry their loved ones...
> ...


Shaddapp with that egotistical tripe


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> What they can't do is force their religious opinions about marriage on the government



How refreshing of an idea....the government respect the church's Constitutional right of 'freedom of religion and the practice thereof', and the church not attempting to force their faith of government...the two simply coincide, as our Founding Fathers intended....


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



I am deeply offended that homosexuals want to compare their "plight" with people who are black. You have no control over your race, it's what you are born with and can't do a thing about. Your sexual behavior is something you CAN control. I don't give a shit how you are born... pedophiles are born with the propensity to mess with kids... they are expected to control that urge. 

Attitudes HAVE changed, that's my whole point here. Despite the efforts made by millions like myself who have tolerated your behavior and accepted that you get sexual pleasure from homosexual acts, allowing you to live as you please and not condemning you for it... look where we are today... you can't be satisfied. It's never going to be enough. 

I have to wonder, would it have just been easier to condemn homosexuality? We can't seem to do enough to please you or appease you... it keeps getting pushed to the next level and then, the next... no end in sight, no sense of rationality whatsoever. Just keep forcing more and more of it down our throats and demanding we accept it or face your wrath. When does this stop? At what point will homosexuals be satisfied? I don't think there IS a point. I think this is a futile effort and maybe we need to reconsider our positions? Maybe it's NOT the right thing to try and tolerate this?


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!


And the first retard farts.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?
> ...


If only you had a brain.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 
Civil rights are still civil rights
It doesn't matter if gays get to "choose" to be gay or not. You choose your religion but are still entitled to civil rights

Nobody is forcing you to accept homosexuality...you are free to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hatred


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?


When are you hoping you can be skull fucked legally?


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like gay tv shows hurt yours?
> ...


But you claimed that gheys are always pushing the boundaries, are you lying or just fantasizing?


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> I am deeply offended that homosexuals want to compare their "plight" with people who are black.



...and speaking as a Native American, the term 'plight' in regards to homosexuals...and even to blacks to a certain extent...doesn't exactly equate to what the native Americans went through. At one point, for example, a law was passed making it ok to kill any Indian...period. (It was repealed fairly quickly, but still...)

So until homosexuals are hunted, killed, rounded up, and placed on and confined to scant, barren plots of land all around the US (although being our own 'nation within a nation' has its perks now - like our own casinos  ), I am not that moved by whining about their 'plight'.

(Native Americans: 'Fighting Illegal Aliens Since 1492....'. You white people - good luck with that...you can see how much luck we had with it. lol )


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I am deeply offended that homosexuals want to compare their "plight" with people who are black.
> ...


 
So you are not allowed to pursue equal treatment under the law unless your "plight" is as bad a blacks and native americans?


----------



## mdk (Sep 16, 2015)

This thread...

I can't wait until that "mouth fucking right" becomes law b/c OP could use a dick in his mouth to stop him from spewing this crazy. lol

I also don't believe for a hot second he has gay friends that loves dearly.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 16, 2015)

mdk said:


> This thread...
> 
> I can't wait until that "mouth fucking right" becomes law b/c OP could use a dick in his mouth to stop him from spewing this crazy. lol
> 
> I also don't believe for a hot second he has gay friends that loves dearly.


He slept with a ghey an for the weekend, in a secluded area and loves him dearly...


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I did not say that - YOU DID. You can pursue equal treatment under the law, as is every person's right...but don't make it sound like just because some Christian refuses to marry 'you', a GLBT, or cater your same-sex wedding that it somehow equates to the REAL 'plight' blacks and Native Americans went through.

CHEROKEE:  "Those of us who weren't hunted down and killed were rounded up and forced to make the great 'Trail of Tears' march, during which many of our people died, to our incarceration at our designated reservation."

BLACKS:  "My father was lynched, our house was burnt down, and a cross was burned in our front yard. I had to sit in the back of the bus, drink from a 'black' water fountain, pick up food from the back door of restaurants, and was battered, bruised, cut, and gashed by bottles and rocks thrown at us while we peacefully marched for our rights."

LGBT:  "Oh yeah, well I went though HAIL!  Some Christian family who owned a bakery refused to cater my same-sex marriage!'
-- 'Weren't there other bakeries willing to do it?'
LGBT: "Well yeah, but I wanted to FORCE this MFer to cater my wedding. Who the hail does he think he is?!"


...please.....


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > easyt65 said:
> ...


 
That is not the plight of gays that I saw growing up

Gays were beaten up and the the bully would claim...He made a pass at me
Gays were openly taunted and harassed
Gays would be kicked out of their families if they admitted to being gay
Gays could be fired from work or denied an apartment for being gay
They were court martialed in the military

Is that enough "plight" for you?


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> That is not the plight of gays that I saw growing up
> 
> Gays were beaten up and the the bully would claim...He made a pass at me
> Gays were openly taunted and harassed
> ...



1. AGAIN, I did not say GLBTs could not pursue equal justice - YOU DID.

2. I will admit they have had a hard time, but I still don't equate these things to the 'plight' blacks and native Americans went through. I would call it a 'struggle' but not a 'plight' - you and I just have different definitions for the terms.

Question....when you SAW these people beaten up, did you ever stand up for them, try to stop it? If not, why not?  Maybe you did...Never mind, that question and answer is for you alone.

Me, I was an outcast in high school, kind of a 'misfit'. I stood up for all the 'nerds', 'outcasts', 'bullied' and 'picked-on'. I had to fight more than my share of fights because of it but finally this kind of stuff became less accepted...though I still remained a misfit. It only makes / made sense that I joined the military, to stand up for those who couldn't/can't stand up for themselves, to defend this country and its citizens - ALL OF THEM. I may not always agree with people on what they believe or say, but I made a career of fighting for their right to say it and be who they want.


----------



## David_42 (Sep 16, 2015)

Wow, what a sad thread.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > That is not the plight of gays that I saw growing up
> ...


 
No, I did not stand up for them
Standing up for a gay meant you were suspected of being gay...I had enough problems

In my high school in the 70s, I would rather go to school being black or native american, than openly gay


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Did you tell your camping buddy that you think he chose to be gay??if so, what did he say to that?


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Did you tell your camping buddy that you think he chose to be gay??if so, what did he say to that?



No I didn't, but he somehow managed to control his sexual urges to fuck me so the topic never came up. For the record, I don't argue whether or not homosexual tendencies are something you are born with because it doesn't matter. You're not born unable to control your urges. 

We don't run around promoting "equal rights" for pig fuckers because.. hey, they're born that way, can't help themselves... we gotta restructure the moral foundations of society to allow their behavior!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2015)

Weeeeeeeee! Full on nutter meltdown!


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Weeeeeeeee! Full on nutter meltdown!



Nah.. It's really more of a philosophical thing you wouldn't understand. 

But thanks for stopping by!


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

A quick summary : Boss says, "I'm more tolerant than anyone you know!  Now let's stop treating gays equally because it bothers me!".


----------



## Skylar (Sep 16, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?
> ...



The spooky part is........they actually believe this shit. I love posts like Boss'. Its a window into the batshit tin foil idiocy that conservatives tell each other.


----------



## Silhouette (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!


 
Of your great OP, these lines stood out the most.  And they are absolutely true.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 16, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!
> ...



Yeah, think of it. Gays and lesbians getting 'addicted' to equal treatment under the law. Imagine that.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Bull, gays have been forcing their perverse behavior on us for awhile now. Lying libtards.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 
Who is forcing you to be homosexual?

Gays are just refusing to hide the fact that they are homosexual. That you can't deal with it is your own hangup


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> I am probably one of the most tolerant people you'll ever meet. I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy... didn't bother me or him one little bit. Like I said... plenty of gay friends and family members who I love and adore. But as tolerant as I am, I have my limits. I'm about done with my tolerance level when it comes to accepting things. If you can't live your gay life without infringing on me, go fuck yourself. I'm tired of defending myself, being called names, ridiculed and scorned because I won't stand for you trashing the Constitution in order to legitimize your homosexual behavior. Enough is enough!


Amen to this! We straight people have never once asked for special treatment because of our being straight, so why should anyone else get any? If the homosexuals are going to say that they stand for equality, then they need to learn how to make sure that their choice of actions match that statement, because a person's choice of action is what tells the real story in this "Talk is cheep." kind of world.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## bodecea (Sep 16, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Sorry to hear that you've been forced to be gay.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.!



"we" as a society started off condemning persons who were homosexuals. 
Luckily 'we' as a society saw the error of mistreating people simply because of who they were attracted to- this came through years of legal efforts to fight discriminatory laws and actions.

What 'special conditions' are you imagining?

No longer being fired for simply being married to the person they love?
No longer being fired just for being gay?
Not being arrested for having sex?
Not being arrested for being in a bar with gay people?

For a couple of hundred years, the anti-homosexual bigots have attempted to villify homosexuals- and continue to do this to this day. Pointing that out is both reasonable and should be encouraged.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I am probably one of the most tolerant people you'll ever meet. I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy... didn't bother me or him one little bit. Like I said... plenty of gay friends and family members who I love and adore. But as tolerant as I am, I have my limits. I'm about done with my tolerance level when it comes to accepting things. If you can't live your gay life without infringing on me, go fuck yourself. I'm tired of defending myself, being called names, ridiculed and scorned because I won't stand for you trashing the Constitution in order to legitimize your homosexual behavior. Enough is enough!
> ...



You understand, I hope, that when homosexuals try to get equal treatment, it is because they have been treated less than equally, meaning heterosexuals have already had 'special treatment'?  For example, if someone can be fired from their job for being gay but not for being straight, straights are getting 'special treatment'.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.!



Really- you allowed them? Why is treating homosexuals equally driving you mad?


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


If you had a brain you would be worthy a correction.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

bodecea said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You are as stupid as rightringer


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.



Oh I am laughing at your homophobic paranoia. 

No- gay men are not going to be advocating to be able to rape you in public- odds are no gay man would want to have anything to do with you.

This is just your homophobic paranoia kicking in.  The real question is why you fantasize about this.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Maybe because straight is normal behavior.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying.  Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.



Perhaps try treating homosexual persons the same way as you do heterosexual persons?

Perhaps you should try to figure out why you are so angry about homosexuals being treated equally under the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!!



You mean- go back to how it was when homosexuals were discriminated against- legally and socially? 

You want to criminalize sexual activitiy between consenting adults? Throw people in jail for being homosexuals? Deny employment to homosexuals?

You really are longing for the old days aren't you?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.
> 
> ...Let the flames begin!



Why don't you move to France since you don't seem to like Americans who happen to be gay?

Really- you have 'tried' for the last 30 years- by passing laws specifically to deny marriage to gay couples? Tell me more what you have done for the last 30 years to promote acceptance of gay Americans.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like gay tv shows hurt yours?
> ...



Well hmmm.

See I don't have an issue with gay people either- but I also don't have your anti-gay fantasies- so perhaps I am more tolerant?

How are you being infringed upon?

Anyone trying to force you into a gay marriage? Insisting that you be gay?

Because frankly- so far all you seem to want to do is complain about homosexuals- which doesn't seem very 'tolerant' to me.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.
> ...



I have yet to see any tolerant or rational people making your claims. 

You want to tell homosexuals that how they are attracted to others of the same gender is wrong- and 'abnormal'.

Well frankly at this point in time your attitude is wrong- and abnormal. But you are allowed to have wrong and abnormal attitudes. I tolerate them- but like you- I can criticize your wrong and abnormal attitude.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I am probably one of the most tolerant people you'll ever meet. I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy... didn't bother me or him one little bit. Like I said... plenty of gay friends and family members who I love and adore. But as tolerant as I am, I have my limits. I'm about done with my tolerance level when it comes to accepting things. If you can't live your gay life without infringing on me, go fuck yourself. I'm tired of defending myself, being called names, ridiculed and scorned because I won't stand for you trashing the Constitution in order to legitimize your homosexual behavior. Enough is enough!
> ...



LOL- yes- we straight people have never asked not to be fired for being heterosexual. We straight people have never asked not to be arrested for having consensual sex with our partner in our bedroom. We straight people have never asked to be allowed to marry the heterosexual we love. 

We straight people have never once asked to be treated exactly the same as gay people.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I am deeply offended that homosexuals want to compare their "plight" with people who are black.
> ...



LOL- so is this the case of which minority group has been discriminated against the wort?

Like pretty much every minority group that has been discriminated against in the United States- gay Americans have had to fight for equal rights. 

Do I think that your particular group was treated worse? Yes. Doesn't mean for example that means therefore that discrimination against Jews or Mormons or Japanese or gays is therefore okay.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What homosexual behavior have you been forced to do?

Be very specific- and use graphic terms for the body parts.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



Whether a behavior is 'normal' is not a good reason to allow discrimination or unequal treatment under the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



Christianity is 'normal' behavior in the United States- that doesn't mean it is right to discriminate against Jews- which is abnormal behavior in the United States.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 16, 2015)

Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end.  They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.

The OP really hits the nail on the head, there is no appeasing the homo-progressives.  The homo-progressive movement was never about 'tolerance'.  There was always tolerance of homosexuals, they weren't being thrown in jail or persecuted by the government.  Did people have disdain for them, and disgust for their actions, naturally.  But queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them.  

But, that wasn't good enough for them.  So they started demanding that there be no consequences for coming out of the closet.  That anyone should be able to be openly gay and that everyone must accept that.  Even though the vast majority of people are disgusted by queers, they were all expected to put their natural revulsion aside and 'accept' a behavior that everyone knows is wrong.  If you didn't alter your behavior and feelings towards homosexuality then you would be harassed and labeled a homophobe and bigot.  But, society still went along with it.

But it still wasn't enough.  Now we are being told that we have to accept 'transgender' people as if they are normal.  We now have to pretend a mutilated cross-dressing queer is a 'woman'.  Sorry, but no.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end.  They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.
> 
> The OP really hits the nail on the head, there is no appeasing the homo-progressives.  The homo-progressive movement was never about 'tolerance'.  There was always tolerance of homosexuals, they weren't being thrown in jail or persecuted by the government.  Did people have disdain for them, and disgust for their actions, naturally.  But queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them.
> 
> ...



It is the people who are not agreed with, who are held in disdain, who are disliked by the majority that our country's civil protections are most often for.  What need for those protections for people who are doing and believing the same things as everyone else?  No, it is the unpopular speech, the strange religious beliefs, the uncommon sexual preferences that require protections so that those people are not stripped of their constitutional rights for being unusual or disliked.

Now, there is nothing saying you cannot hate or be disgusted by or disapprove of any person.  However, the law is meant to be impartial.  As far as what society accepts or does not, in that, you're on your own, as are we all.  Social norms are most often based on the feelings of the majority.  If the majority of people in the country have decided to be tolerant of and comfortable with LGBTs, but you are not, well, that's unfortunate for you.  Societal norms are always changing.  Sometimes those changes are unpalatable to us.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end.  They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.
> 
> The OP really hits the nail on the head, there is no appeasing the homo-progressives.  The homo-progressive movement was never about 'tolerance'.  There was always tolerance of homosexuals, they weren't being thrown in jail or persecuted by the government.  Did people have disdain for them, and disgust for their actions, naturally.  But queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them.
> 
> ...



Oh, the USSC decision which declared sodomy laws unconstitutional didn't happen until 2003.  Up until then it was still legally acceptable to imprison gays for consensual sex acts, and in fact the case was one in which two men were charged and convicted of, basically, having gay sex.  So your contention that "queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them" has only been true for a little more than a decade, legally speaking.

I'm also curious why, if the vast majority of people are disgusted by queers, they would accept that behavior on a personal level?  Where did homosexuals get the power to decide what is or is not socially acceptable?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If you are under the impression that I think that homosexuals don't deserve things like jobs, homes, cars, etc., then you have the wrong impression of me. In my opinion, if a person is good at the job that they work and is always professional when they are at their job, they should be able to keep their job and to me everyone needs a home, food, etc. too no matter how they live their lives. What they are up to during their free time is what I will never be all in favor of.



Syriusly said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Maybe the reason why we straight people have never had to ask for certain things is because of the fact that a straight man and woman, Adam and Ever that is, are who got the population of this planet started which means that the straight lifestyle is what was here first.

God bless you two always!!!   

Holly


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


You are talking religion, gay is neither a religion nor normal.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Another stupid idiot. You retarded libs don't know how to read. No wonder this country is in the shape it is.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Meh, two guys swapping spit on the it's a small world ride at Disneyland is completely normal. I mean, why would anyone consider the public display to be offensive?

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I am probably one of the most tolerant people you'll ever meet. I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy... didn't bother me or him one little bit. Like I said... plenty of gay friends and family members who I love and adore. But as tolerant as I am, I have my limits. I'm about done with my tolerance level when it comes to accepting things. If you can't live your gay life without infringing on me, go fuck yourself. I'm tired of defending myself, being called names, ridiculed and scorned because I won't stand for you trashing the Constitution in order to legitimize your homosexual behavior. Enough is enough!
> ...


You did get special treatment. You were allowed to serve your country. You were allowed to marry the person you loved. 

What is wrong with gays wanting what you have?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


Would a straight couple swapping spit on a public ride be acceptable?


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> You were allowed to marry the person you loved.
> 
> What is wrong with gays wanting what you have?



What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children? The ancient Greeks did this routinely. Even in the US, up until very recently, you could marry as young as 14 in some states. In Appalachian communities, girls were married sometimes at the age of 12.  Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals? We can't discriminate, can we? Why should they be denied the same rights as you? What's wrong with them wanting what you have? 

How about a brother and sister who want to marry? Who are we to deny them their rights? If the problem is, they might have retarded babies, we can make the stipulation that one of them has to be infertile or have a hysterectomy/vasectomy so no children are possible. Same with a father and daughter or mother and son. Lots of people we're discriminating against when it comes to marrying who they love.  And we've not even touched on the pig fuckers... they should have rights to marry the pig they love too! Who are you to deny them that right? What harm does it do to your gay marriage? 

And yes, before you say it, I already understand what "consent" means... we can change that as easily as we changed "marriage" to mean whatever pleases us. We're not confined by antiquated definitions anymore.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You were allowed to marry the person you loved.
> ...



We *can* change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?  We have age of consent laws to (ostensibly) protect the young who cannot make informed decisions.  That basic reasoning would apply to animals.  Who needs protecting when it comes to adult homosexuals?  It's an entirely different argument.

As far as I have seen you can still marry as young as 14 in some states, although it requires parental and sometimes judicial consent.

With parents and children, the issue is not simply one of offspring.  There is a question of power in the relationship, of whether, again, informed consent can be made.  It is similar to the reasoning behind preventing teachers and students from having relationships, even if it is legal based on their ages.

With brother and sister it is a much more difficult argument to make, particularly if no potential children are involved.  

Of course these arguments have been around as long as there have been discussions about gay marriage.  And as always, they are mostly silly.  However, when it comes to things like polygamy and incest, if someone believes they are being treated unequally, they are free to bring it to the court system.  Perhaps the courts would make a similar ruling in those cases.  Also as always, any individual is completely free to disagree with any sort of relationship.  Nothing in the law or the recent Obergefell ruling changes that.


----------



## turzovka (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> However, the law is meant to be impartial.



The law is as impartial as the partial opinions or of those making the laws.  Marijuana anybody?



Montrovant said:


> As far as what society accepts or does not, in that, you're on your own, as are we all.  Social norms are most often based on the feelings of the majority.  If the majority of people in the country have decided to be tolerant of and comfortable with LGBTs, but you are not, well, that's unfortunate for you.


The overriding fact behind all this is that what this truly is is a marketing game.  Sway public opinion and win the game.  Less than ten years ago the first 30 states to vote on gay marriage referendums all voted against it including the liberal ones like California and Oregon.  Even the “truthful” presidential candidate Barack Obama was against gay marriage. So what happened so quickly?  The liberals of many stripes got more aggressive.  Gay movements wanted govt benefits but that got quickly dismissed for gay marriage demands,  because they really wanted total acceptance by all of society and its laws that gay is as normal and good as anything else.  Moral law and Christianity be damned.  And the heavily liberal mainstream media ran with it, as did of course the entertainment media, and the liberal universities, and the cowardly liberal and cowardly republican politicians, and then the courts.  So who can stop all that?

Worst of all, and the largest contributing factor to society’s change in attitudes and beliefs, is that the majority of self-proclaimed Christians in this nation either did not care or were easily swayed by the liberal, secular spin by all vehicles noted above.  In essence, they have forgotten their God and they probably never bothered much with Him in the first place unless they were in bad health or low on funds.  The price we are paying was inevitable.



Montrovant said:


> Societal norms are always changing.  Sometimes those changes are unpalatable to us.


And sometimes that change is dead wrong --- such as the legalization of butchering infants in the womb.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > However, the law is meant to be impartial.
> ...



Again, why were the liberals you speak of able to so successfully sway public opinion on this matter?  Why weren't those who disagree able to put forth countering views to prevent this change in societal norms?  Perhaps society just reached a tipping point it was already heading toward regarding homosexuals.  

Right or wrong, tolerance for and acceptance of homosexuals has clearly been increasing in recent decades.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 16, 2015)

BOSS SAID:

"I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left..." 

It has nothing to do with 'the left.'

It has to do with you being factually wrong and advocating something fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Your OP is inane, ridiculous, sophomoric, childish, boorish, and completely devoid of merit; it represents most on the reactionary right: those with an unwarranted fear and animosity toward change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

That you would seek to disadvantage gay Americans based on your inability to enjoy your favorite television programs is beyond moronic.

You won't 'catch flack' from just 'the left,' you'll 'catch flack' from any rational, thinking person.


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> We *can* change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?



When did *what most people want* come into play here? Most people don't condone or support homosexual marriage. That has been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot. The SCOTUS has ruled that it simply doesn't matter what people want, this is a right under the Constitution.


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Perhaps the courts would make a similar ruling in those cases.



Perhaps? Seems to me they have no choice. If we've redefined marriage to legitimize sexual behavior then the can of worms is open. You can't pick and choose which sexual behaviors are "icky" and which are not and dole out "fundamental rights" on that basis. We either have rights or we don't.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I don't find it offensive at all.

Do you?

-Geaux


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the courts would make a similar ruling in those cases.
> ...



It may seem that way to you.  Clearly, based on your posts on the subject (claims of incredible tolerance notwithstanding), you have a tenuous grasp of the issues involved.

You say you understand consent, then just throw out 'well, consent laws can change'.  Of course they can.  However, homosexual marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional after homosexual relationships were legal.  Your analogy is to have illegal relationships jump straight to marriages.  If age of consent laws change, then you could argue that those relationships with currently underage youths should be allowed to become marriages.  If animal / human relationships were made legal, then you could argue those relationships should be allowed to become marriages (ignoring the idiocy of the idea of animals entering into contracts).  Just saying "If gays can marry, anyone can marry anything!" is a tired and completely asinine argument.  It implies that marriage has never changed and any change to marriage means all rules or boundaries of marriage must disappear.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > We *can* change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?
> ...



Unless age of consent laws are deemed unconstitutional, or there is a sudden shift in the opinions and policies of our representatives, it would take a majority of people either voting on referendums or voting into office willing representatives to change those laws.

As to most people condoning homosexual marriage, that seems to be a fairly evenly split subject based on polling.  It also has not "been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot", as prior to the Obergefell decision some states had legalized same sex marriage though both legislature and referendum.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The point is that the Arguments advanced by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality were and remain irrational, deceitful and based entirely upon NOTHING.

Children are not capable of consenting to sex, because children do not bear the experience to understand the consequences for sex... .

Now the adult who desires the child doesn't give a tinker's dam' about what the child can reasonably understand, they simply and quite irrationally seek sexual gratification with a child.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality do not give a rip about the effect of deviant sexuality on the individuals who crave such, they simply care about the campaign, the battle against whatever and whoever contests their irrational cravings.

At some point, the APA will simply hold a vote and through that vote they will declare children 'psychologically capable' of consenting to sex.  From that the ANSA Machine will activate and they will simultaneously demand 'equal protection under the law for the 'rights of children' and instantly, the entire media will be consumed by the 'DEBATE',wherein there will be no 'debate', only Leftists braying about the 'injustice' of preventing children from joining with 'caring, loving adults', etc, etc... and consequently, the law will be changed so as to provide for the legal pursuit of children for sexual gratification, by adults.

All this is about is the Evil that is manifested through the relativism common to and which is otherwise advanced through the Ideological Left.

Rest assured that they are coming for your children and grand children and they are the most profound, unbridled evil ever witnessed on the face of the earth.  They exist for no other purpose than the destruction of civilization and with it, all mankind.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You ask me such a question as if I am the reason why they don't get whatever it is that they want when I don't have anything to do with it.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. As for what is wrong with homosexuals wanting what the rest of us have. Well when you put it like that, its an act of coveting which is against the Lord's ten commandments.


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The only "poll" that matters is the one where the ballot box resides. In those polls, the public has overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage in even the most liberal meccas in the nation. In fact, numerous initiatives have reaffirmed traditional marriage in many states. This issue is not being resolved at the ballot box and that is what is offensive to many including myself. It is being taken out of our hands by a rogue Supreme Court, legislating morality from the bench. Creating rights that do not exist based on notions that the public doesn't accept. 

So no... consent laws don't have to be changed, the SCOTUS can apparently rule whatever they please into existence. It won't take a majority of anything more than liberal SCOTUS justices.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> The only "poll" that matters is the one where the ballot box resides. In those polls, the public has overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage in even the most liberal meccas in the nation. In fact, numerous initiatives have reaffirmed traditional marriage in many states. This issue is not being resolved at the ballot box and that is what is offensive to many including myself. It is being taken out of our hands by a rogue Supreme Court, legislating morality from the bench. Creating rights that do not exist based on notions that the public doesn't accept.
> 
> So no... consent laws don't have to be changed, the SCOTUS can apparently rule whatever they please into existence. It won't take a majority of anything more than liberal SCOTUS justices.



Just well said.

I'd only add that the Supreme Legislature is legislating IMMORALITY from the bench, having rejected all sense of a soundly reasoned, objective morality.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end.  They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.
> 
> The OP really hits the nail on the head, there is no appeasing the homo-progressives.  The homo-progressive movement was never about 'tolerance'.  There was always tolerance of homosexuals, they weren't being thrown in jail or persecuted by the government.  Did people have disdain for them, and disgust for their actions, naturally.  But queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them.
> 
> ...



LOL- our responses has sure made the homophobes foam at the mouth- you sure are threatened by homosexuals being treated exactly equally with heterosexuals.

FYI- you can have whatever feelings you want- but if you want to broadcast your bigotry- whether towards Jews or African Americans or homsoexuals- have the balls to take the criticism of your public bigotry without whining.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



LOL- so you are just another fearful homophobe- terrified that someone gay will force you to participate in 'gayness' but not actually being affected by anything other than your paranoia and terror.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



Well personally I don't find two guys 'swapping spit' any more appropriate than a guy and a gal swapping spit on "Its a Small World"

The difference between you and me- I don't get offended just because it is two guys- but you do.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> ... homophobes ...





Syriusly said:


> ... homophobe...



There is *literally,* no such thing as a Homophobe.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Well personally I don't find two guys 'swapping spit' any more appropriate ...



That's the mental disorder that presents through your desire for sexual gratification with a person of your own gender failing you, again.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You were allowed to marry the person you loved.
> ...



What is it with homophobes like you not understanding the idea of 'Consent'?

This comes up often- always with people who like you have a real issue with equal rights when it comes to homosexuals.

If you do not understand the concept of 'consent'- then I am concerned that no women or children would be safe around you. 

Or is this just a strawman you are raising?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ... homophobes ...
> ...



There literally is

noun
1.
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality. 

Pretty sure the dictionary has a photo of you with the definition.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The last three votes on gay marriage either rejected attempts to make gay marriage illegal- or made gay marriage legal.

Funny how you start a thread talking about how the people 'feel' but reject any polls on how people actually feel when the polls don't align with your own prejudices.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I wonder if the Supreme Court has ever made a ruling you agreed with which made you consider them a 'rogue court'.  

It's strange how disagreeing with the court's decision makes them suddenly judicial activists or rogues or legislating morality, etc.  It's as though some people think the court only has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws so long as they rule the way those people want.......


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> There literally is
> 
> noun
> 1.
> ...



Oh... the flaccid appeal to misleading authority... now,_ isn't that precious._

Of course, the dictionary is speaking to the colloquial expression; which is to say words used in ordinary or familiar conversation that have no formal or literal meaning.

We know this because the word 'homophobe' is a compound word; meaning that two words were used to form one word.

The first formal or _literal_ word is 'homo', meaning "same"; which is to say: that which is identical or _not different._

The second formal, or _literal_ word is "Phobe", short for _phobia, _where the usage indicates the bearer of the phobia... which is a medical term which means:_ an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. _The_something having been identified through the suffix 'Homo', _which we learned earlier literally means:_ that which is identical or not different. _

Thus the literal meaning of _'Homophobe' _is _"One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"._

And since there is no medical diagnosis of _"One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"; _meaning that such does not exist... we can KNOW that the word: Homophobe is a fabrication by the Cult of Degeneracy... that such has found colloquial popularity, thus is printed in the dictionary expressing the popular, non-literal, deceitful meaning... is wholly IRRELEVANT.

The simple fact is there is no medical root for any such 'condition'... . And that remains true in BOTH the Literal and Colloquial usage.

And THAT dear Reader, is how THAT ... _is done._

(Remember... The key to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.)


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the courts would make a similar ruling in those cases.
> ...



You just displayed the fundamental problem with your 'argument'

Obergefell had nothing to do with sexual behavior.

Nothing.

Read the case- it is not discussed.

Americans have a fundamental right to marry. States can only deny those rights by demonstrating a clear and convincing state interest in doing so. States could not do so regarding preventing two people of the same gender from marrying.

Do you have any objection to two siblings marrying? A father marrying his daughter? If not- well then you probably want those to be legal also- but the States may disagree.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Pretty much everyone who disagrees with the courts on Obergefell, agrees with the court when it overturns State laws which restrict gun rights.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ... homophobes ...
> ...



I think you may be mistaking the meaning of literally.  Even if you don't accept the common definition of the word, it could still simply mean a person afraid of homosexuals, and there's no reason to think that phobia doesn't exist.  There are far stranger ones!


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > There literally is
> ...



Would you prefer the use of homosexualphobe?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well it 'could' mean 'the green mold that grows on the bottom of old cars, that sit on the edge of the bayou', or it 'could' mean: refrigerator, or couch... .

Because the words cobbled together to form the word have no basis in fact, with regard to what the user claims the word to mean.  And that is because the word is a fiction... fabricated from whole cloth, again... with no root in reality, whatsoever.

_'Homophobe'_ is a Deceit, which is FRAUDULENTLY advanced, as a means to exploit simple Ignorance, toward the goal of cowing political opposition to the _*Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Would you prefer the use of homosexualphobe?



I don't care what letters they use... they could use "LHBIV"NA"PHOBE".  Such spelling would in no way alter the invalidity of the concept.

Contesting the normalization of homosexuality is perfectly rational.  Therefore the use of the root _'phobia'_ is absurdly false and they dam' well know it's false.

But they do not care that what they are claiming is false, because THEY are irrational.  And that is how we can KNOW that they are mired in the mental disorder, OKA: Sociopathy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pretty much everyone who disagrees with the courts on Obergefell, agrees with the court when it overturns State laws which restrict gun rights.



ROFLMNAO!

Yes.. because the problem is that the judiciary exists.  And certainly not that the Left only uses the pretense of a judiciary when it wholly departs from the purpose of the judiciary to use a simple majority to cast a constitutionally dismembered majority vote, as a means to impart 'social justice', which is entirely antithetical to _actual *justice.*_


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well I thought I understood the concept of "marriage" but apparently I was wrong. So why is "consent" any different? 

And how were gay people not being given equal rights? Marriage licenses are not issued on the basis of whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. IF that were what was happening, I could see your argument, but that's not what is happening. They aren't allowed to do something that IS NOT marriage and call that marriage. The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end.  They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.
> ...



I'm not "threatened" by homosexuals being treated equal.  They were being treated equally, but that wasn't good enough for them.  They want special treatment, and they want to force others into accepting them.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end.  They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.
> ...



Oh please, you're telling us that queers were afraid of being thrown in jail for their sexual acts?  All because of some old law on the books that was never enforced?  That's a load of crap and you know it.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

JOSweetHeart said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



So you are also opposed to anyone of any race or religion or national origin- wanting to be treated equally?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Hmmm are you really this ignorant?

The very Supreme Court case that overturned sodomy laws that were targeted against homosexuals were because of homosexuals who were arrested for sexual acts in the privacy of their bedroom.

Even after that- in Louisiana, gay men were being arrested for responding to solicitations for sex by police under cover operatives- those cases were thrown out because gay sex was no longer illegal but as recently as a few years ago, gay men were indeed being thrown in jail for sexual acts.

Go back further- and gays were thrown in jail not only for sexual acts but for merely appearing to be gay.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Since when is equal treatment 'special treatment'?

Homosexuals for the last 200 years in America have been attacked both legally and socially for being homosexuals. Only relatively recently have homosexuals been treated somewhat equally- no longer discharged from the military, no longer arrested for being gay, no longer fired from teaching positions for being gay- and no longer being denied the right to marry the person that they wanted to marry.

So what is this special treatment you imagine?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't know - why don't you understand the concept of consent?

Why do you not understand that it is wrong to rape a 4 year old girl? Or a 40 year old girl?

The answer is consent.

If you don't understand consent- then you do know what rape is.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You see no difference between two consenting adults marrying- and a pedophile marrying a 4 year old child?

How terribly sad for you- and how terribly dangerous for others.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much everyone who disagrees with the courts on Obergefell, agrees with the court when it overturns State laws which restrict gun rights.
> ...



Because Keys doesn't want any judiciary to tell the Legislature or the Executive that what they are doing is unconstitutional......wow....


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So you agree they aren't being arrested for being gay.  Nothing ever prevented two gays from being "married" to each other.  But forcing society to recognize that as a legitmate marriage is absurd.  A marriage is between a man and a woman, period.  That doesn't prevent gays from being together or living together, or even calling it a "marriage" between themselves.  Individuals have the right to NOT recognize gay marriage as legitamite.  We have the right to NOT let them adopt our children.

Special treatment is when you expect everyone else to accomodate you.  I don't expect gays to change their ways, I am not asking them to.  Queers can be with each other all they want, I simply don't care.  Yet, they want people like me to change our beliefs.  They want to force us to accept their behavior as normal.  It's NOT going to happen.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 17, 2015)

"It's easier to condemn homosexuality"

It's easier to discriminate against African-Americans.

It's easier to deny women their right to privacy.

It's easier to deny immigrants their due process rights.

It's easier to deny minorities their voting rights.

Yes, there are a lot of things that are 'easier,' that's what's comprehensively wrong with conservative dogma: it surrenders to and indulges the dark side of human nature – the intellectual laziness and contempt for critical thinking, the unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty – the hate that manifest as a result of fear and ignorance, the hate that most conservatives use to justify denying gay Americans their rights simply because of who they are.


----------



## ninja007 (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like gay tv shows hurt yours?
> ...



brokeback mountain style?


----------



## ninja007 (Sep 17, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "It's easier to condemn homosexuality"
> 
> It's easier to discriminate against African-Americans.
> 
> ...



bullshit. none of what you listed is true you lib hack. This is a perfect example of how the left lies and tries to portray right as bigots, sexists, homophobes.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I've already told you... I understand consent. I also thought I understood marriage. Why do you not understand that two people of the same gender can't marry? It doesn't matter if they are straight, gay or whatever... marriage is the union of a male and female. Men can't have babies, women can't produce sperm, these are not discrimination, they are facts of life. You could shove a baby up your male lover's ass, let him shit it out and *pretend* he gave birth... that's not giving birth. It doesn't become that because you call it that. You can't change the meaning of giving birth so that it includes that. 

What I understand by all this is, if we can alter the meaning of what "marriage" is, we can also alter the meaning of what "consent" is... not hard to do. In fact, you've made it easy to do because all that needs to happen is someone claim a violation of their rights is occurring and a liberal activist court agreeing with them... poof... the word is changed!


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> I'm not "threatened" by homosexuals being treated equal. They were being treated equally, but that wasn't good enough for them. They want special treatment, and they want to force others into accepting them.



I submit it is WORSE than forcing others into accepting them. From a psychological perspective, they can never feel accepted because they know homosexuality is wrong. It simply doesn't matter how much effort is made to accept them, they can't accept themselves. 

Another area we see similar behavior is in those who attempt suicide. We can counsel them, tell them all the reasons they have to live, we can care about their feelings and problems all day long... at the end of the day, we can't keep them from killing themselves. We can't fix whatever demons are inside them, it doesn't matter what *we* do.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

ninja007 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



More like old hippies at a music festival style. I have a lot of artistic friends and many of them are gay or bisexual. It doesn't bother me, I even had a couple of close transgender friends. One of them killed themselves a few years ago, it was very sad. We talked often, I could feel their pain. They felt trapped in a world that didn't accept them. The other one, I've helped him pick out "drag-wear" and put on makeup! He's more of an entertainer and has a strong self-esteem about who he is... he won't be a suicide. Some of my gay friends are activists, flaming gay all over the place, others are so understated you'd never know they were gay. People come in many varieties.... I don't judge anyone based on a stereotype. 

But none of my gay or transgender friends have ever had a problem controlling their sexual urges. They know that I am straight and it doesn't bother them. They've never made any sort of advance or tried to 'convert' me... they might have flirted a bit but that's okay with me. I do wonder sometimes... is it okay to find it flattering your gay friend is flirting with you? At the end of the day, I know that I am not gay and that I like women. I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity and sexuality to sleep in a tent with a gay guy... or even wear a pink shirt... doesn't bother me. People are individuals and assholes come in all forms. (No pun intended) 

It's very humorous to me, the persona I seem to have here among the lefties is so totally opposite of who I really am in real life. I guarantee you, these people who trash me here, could meet me out somewhere at a party and we'd have a great time together. We might even become best buds... I might even go help them pick out drag-wear!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 17, 2015)

Judging on that toga, i dont doubt you could help them.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 17, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Judging on that toga, i dont doubt you could help them.



But.......he's secure enough to wear a pink shirt. He's enlightened.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


And then idiots like you think Christians don't have the right to pray in schools. Hint, they do.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You were allowed to marry the person you loved.
> ...


 
What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You were allowed to marry the person you loved.
> ...


 
What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > We *can* change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?
> ...


 
No ballot in the last three years has denied same sex marriage. Current polls show a majority of Americans support it

You are in the minority


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Calling people homosexual has been the ultimate insult for their whole lives. They have not figured out that the insult has lost its power



The cat 'Family' and 'Subfamily' is 'Felidae'. The 'Genus' of cats is 'Felis', the 'Species' is
F. catis'.  Should a cat be offended if he / she is referred to as a 'Felis Catis' or 'Felidae'?

The 'Genus', if you will, of man is 'Homo', the species is 'H. Sapien'. The intellectuals (smart people) of the world, being called 'Homo' would look back at the person trying to taunt them with a puzzled look, wondering why this idiot thinks this is a taunt to begin with, since it is true.

A further breakdown of the Species is 'Homo Sapien'. Based on sexual preference, the further classification includes but is now not limited to Homosexual or Heterosexual. Again, why would anyone be offended by being called or referenced to as exactly what they are...unless they are somehow ashamed of what they are? If that is the case, it is not the problem of the person who called them this but the person themselves who has the problem.  Rather than being hyper-sensitive and easily offended by such an accurate 'labeling' (for lack of a better word here) they should come to grips with who they are / the choices they have made (based on your idea on this).

I can see an appropriate offense being taken by many other 'street slang' labels for homosexuals, but 'Homosexual' is not an insult - it is a scientific categorization.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not



It used to be. And you're absolutely right, it *is* wrong. From a Constitutional rights perspective, how can you make one type of sexuality legitimate without making all sexuality legitimate? The Constitution is clear about equal protection. That is exactly the problem with legalizing sexuality as a basis for marriage. You've now opened Pandora's Box.


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> It used to be. And you're absolutely right, it *is* wrong. From a Constitutional rights perspective, how can you make one type of sexuality legitimate without making all sexuality legitimate? The Constitution is clear about equal protection. That is exactly the problem with legalizing sexuality as a basis for marriage. You've now opened Pandora's Box.



 The Constitution says the government will not advocate one religion over another...never said anything about sexual preference....


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not
> ...



Why was Pandora's Box not opened when marriage laws were changed in the past?  Why is it only with same sex marriage?  You might say that all the previous marriage laws involved a man and a woman, but so what?  All marriage laws have still involved two consenting adults, so your arguments about pedophilia and bestiality shouldn't be an issue, right?  Or is the problem actually your disapproval with the latest change to marriage law rather than any actual legal Pandora's Box....


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



As Syriusly pointed out, the case which ruled state sodomy laws unconstitutional was based on two gay men having been charged and convicted of having gay sex in their own home.  So yes, gays had reason to be afraid of being thrown in jail for their sexual acts.  That is exactly what was happening.  It wasn't some old law on the books never enforced, it was a law that had been enforced and was challenged.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Did you not even read what I posted? 

Since when is equal treatment 'special treatment'?

Homosexuals for the last 200 years in America have been attacked both legally and socially for being homosexuals. Only relatively recently have homosexuals been treated somewhat equally- no longer discharged from the military, no longer arrested for being gay, no longer fired from teaching positions for being gay- and no longer being denied the right to marry the person that they wanted to marry.

So what is this special treatment you imagine?

Yes- the law did prevent two homosexuals from legally marrying each other- just as the law used to prevent two people from other races from marrying each other. 

You don't have to recognize as 'legitimate' any marriage you don't approve of-  but now legally gay couples are treated equally.

You insist on calling that 'special treatment'. 

The rest of us call that 'equal treatment'


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not
> ...



Again- what is the issue with homophobes like yourself not understanding the concept of consent?

Two adults consenting to have sex with each other is not the same as an adult male raping a 4 year old girl.

You consistently seem unable to distinguish any difference between rape and consensual sex. 

And that could be dangerous for anyone you interact with.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not "threatened" by homosexuals being treated equal. They were being treated equally, but that wasn't good enough for them. They want special treatment, and they want to force others into accepting them.
> ...



Who is forcing you to accept anyone? How?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



I doubt any gays care about your 'beliefs' any more than Jews care about the 'beliefs' of anti-semites. 

Simply treating gay Americans exactly equal to non-gay Americans is not special treatment- except in the eyes of the paranoid anti-gays like yourself.


----------



## hazlnut (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...




Shall we condemn left-handed people as well.


A society that can not accept people as how God made them, is not civilized and will self-distruct.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Clearly you don't understand consent- since you keep bringing up pedophilic relationships- and indeed in your OP your concern that gays would be forcing you to have sex with them.

Two people of the same gender can marry- not only is it legal- I have been to a wedding between two men- it was like every other wedding I have been to- except slightly more fun. 

You don't have to accept those marriages are 'real' of course- no more than I have to accept your opinion as real.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Or a Conservative Congress could decide to legalize child rape- a Conservative Congress with an attitude like yours- could decide that since there is now 'gay marriage' that they should legalize men being able to rape 4 year old girls. 

It is possible that a Conservative Congress could be as blind to the concept of consent as you are- or perhaps as bitter about homosexuals being able to marry that they will legalize child rape in order to get their 'revenge' on gay Americans.

I mean if we are going to engage in really stupid speculation like you are doing.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not
> ...



So you think if one type of sexuality is legitimate- i.e. a man inserting his penis in a woman's vagina- then every possible sexual act must therefore be legitimate?

Do you think that a man putting his penis in a 4 year old girl is a sexual act? Or rape?


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.
> ...


What specifically bugs you so much.  It seems the homosexual community wants what every other citizen wants.  That is full access to our system of jurisprudence i.e. marriage equality.  They want to conduct commerce without undeserved humiliation and discrimination.  They want to no longer fear their professional positions by way of their conduct in their personal lives.  They want to do away with undue humiliation and discrimination.  Nothing more.

Why oppose those simple, basic conditions of human existence?  Would you discriminate against your fellow Americans if you thought their personal lives did not conform with. Yours?  What would be the rationalization for that?


----------



## Faun (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...


So don't tolerate it. So what?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> So you are also opposed to anyone of any race or religion or national origin- wanting to be treated equally?


I'm not. To me, everyone should have the necessities. I just don't condone any act of homosexuality.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And when it was challenged it was thrown out.  If that is the best you have, you don't have much of a case for present day persecution.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Apparently gays do care what people like me think, or at least the homo-progressives sure do.  If they didn't care what we think, why would they label us homophobes and bigots?  They are trying very hard to brainwash everyone into thinking homosexuality it normal and moral.

You keep reverting to saying it's all about being treated equally to everyone else.  How can you expect people to treat homosexuals as normal people when most people find the act disgusting?  Do you find rapists revolting?  Could you ever put aside your natural revulsion towards rapists aside and treat them as if they are like everyone else?  If not, then how can you expect people to do the same for homos?  You may not feel that way about queers and homosexuality, but you should acknowledge the fact that most people do, and stop trying to change them.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Somehow you think your freedom of speech equates to 'freedom from criticism'.

Homophobe and bigot is just a handy label for who you are- just as 'gay' is a handy term for those who are attracted to the same gender.

Who is forcing you to change your beliefs- and how?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



I keep on saying treating gay Americans exactly equal to non-gay Americans is no different than expecting people to treat Jewish Americans no differently from Christian Americans.

More specifically- I believe people should be treated equally legally. And I believe that is what every American expects.

*And- let me just see if I understand you- you find a homosexual just as revolting as a rapist?*

Really?

See- I think that says much more about you- than it says about any American who happens to be attracted to the same gender.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



When did I ever say anyone is free from criticism?  In fact it is your side that starts crying about violation of "rights" when the homosexual lifestyle is criticized.

I never said anyone forced me to change my beliefs, just that homo-progressives sure are trying to persuade society that homosexuality is normal and healthy.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, I was using it as an example to get you to understand.  Any act that you find revolting.  Now can you answer the question?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



No- it was not 'thrown out'.

The men were prosecuted- and convicted. They appealed all the way to the Supreme Court- and the Supreme Court threw their case out.

What you seem to be avoiding dealing with here is that yes indeed homosexuals have been- and were arrested for having consensual sex together- Lawrence v. Texas legally ended discriminatory laws that made private consensual sex between people of the same gender illegal.

Even after Lawrence- Lousiana Sheriff Deputies arrested men under the same kind of statutes- those were thrown out because the law had already been found to be unconstitutional.

Yes homosexuals had reason to be afraid of being arrested for sexual acts- or even just for appearing to homosexual. Lawrence v. Texas was the end of a long history of legal persecution of homosexuals- not just a single incident.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Here is what you said:

*They want to force us to accept their behavior as normal.  It's NOT going to happen.*

Who do you imagine is trying to force you to accept anything- and how do you imagine that they are?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Hmmm any act that I find revolting?

Do you find rape revolting?
Do you find homosexuality revolting?

You were the one who asked me to compare my feelings towards rape to your feelings towards homosexuals.

You tell me how your revulsion to homosexuality is the same or different towards your revulsion towards rape?

As for me?

I find rape to be revolting because it is a crime of violence against another person. I can't imagine why any rational thinking person would equate a crime of violence with a person being attracted to someone of the same gender.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Gee, how about laws that are imprisoning people that don't accept their behavior and don't want to associate or do business with them?  Like forcing a baker to make a cake for them, and threatening to fine them, take their business away, or jail them if they don't.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I already answered your question. 
Asking again isn't going to change my answer.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You tell me it wasn't thrown out, then two sentences later you admit it was.

So if all you have is one example of homos being persecuted, and that was a case that was thrown out, then you don't have much of a case that queers are being rounded up and arrested.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



So you have revulsion to rapists- who violently attack another another person- and homosexuals- who are simply attracted to another person. 

Maybe not exactly as revolting- but you use the same term to describe how a rapist makes you feel and how a homosexual makes you feel.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



I have a case where homsexuals were arrested for having consensual sex in private- and were convicted- and their case was ultimately voided by the Supreme Court- because their arrest was unconstitutional.

As I pointed out- and as you want to avoid dealing with- this was an actual example of persecution of homosexuals for having sex- the last actual conviction because the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...




You mean the laws which say it is illegal to refuse to do business with African Americans, Jews, Christians, or homosexuals?

How is telling a business to follow the law forcing anyone to accept Blacks, Christians or homosexuals?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Do you have a problem with tenses?  This started with you talking about the past, claiming that gays were able to do what they wanted and live in peace.  It has been shown to you that this was not the case, that legally, until a mere 12 years ago, it was still illegal to have homosexual sex in some places.  Now, suddenly, you are talking about present day?

You're right, today, it is unconstitutional to arrest someone for being gay or having sex with someone of the same gender.  That doesn't mean that everything is now hunky-dory, gays are treated equally.  Being arrested is not the only way someone can be discriminated against.  However, things are absolutely far, far better for gays than they were in the past.

You say "the vast majority of people are disgusted by queers".  What leads you to that conclusion?  Obviously you are disgusted, and I don't doubt that most or all of the people you associate with are disgusted, but the vast majority?  I'm curious what you can point to that indicates that is true.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why was Pandora's Box not opened when marriage laws were changed in the past?



Because marriage wasn't changed to accommodate sexual behavior.  Now that it has been, you have disenfranchised all other sexual behavior. The Equal Protection clause says you can't do that. Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles and then those who like to fuck pigs. This doesn't end with homosexuals living happily ever after.


----------



## Faun (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why was Pandora's Box not opened when marriage laws were changed in the past?
> ...


Again .... the law is applied equally ... incest is illegal, no one is allowed to marry their own parent, child, sibling, etc. So the 14th Amendment is not being violated. Polygamy is illegal, no one is a allowed to marry more than one person. The law is applied equally to everyone and the 14th Amendment is not being violated. Pedophilia is illegal, no one is allowed to rape underaged kids. The law is again applied equally to all.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> ... until a mere 12 years ago, it was still illegal to have homosexual sex in some places. Now, suddenly, you are talking about present day?
> 
> You're right, today, it is unconstitutional to arrest someone for being gay or having sex with someone of the same gender. That doesn't mean that everything is now hunky-dory, gays are treated equally...



Wow... just like, today, it is illegal for adults to have sex with children, incest is illegal and fucking animals is illegal. Consent means Consent and marriage is now based on legitimization of your sexual preferences.... A mere 12 years from now, the law could be very different. Thank you! 

I hate to break this to you but gays are never going to be treated equally. Changing the definition of marriage is not "treating equal" it is making an exception, the epitome of "treating equal." It is explicitly singling out homosexuals to bestow a right to something they didn't have before. So through this, you've also seemingly redefined "equal treatment" as well as "marriage." Now, equal treatment means we have to change things to accommodate others. All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated... those groups have to be made equal. Laws have to be changed.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Faun said:


> Again .... the law is applied equally..



Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.


----------



## Faun (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Again .... the law is applied equally..
> ...


Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ... until a mere 12 years ago, it was still illegal to have homosexual sex in some places. Now, suddenly, you are talking about present day?
> ...



Yep, the law might be different in 12 years.  Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point.  Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?

I've always thought the argument for equal treatment when it comes to same sex marriage was strongest based on gender.  Men have been allowed to marry women.  Women are denied that same right without a compelling reason.  And vice versa.  That seems to be a form of discrimination based on gender.  However, I believe the argument ended up more along the lines of because two consenting adults can enter into a marriage contract if they are of opposite genders, there needs to be a compelling state interest to prevent two consenting adults of the same gender from entering into a marriage contract, and there is not.

With polygamy, no one is allowed to enter into a marriage contract of more than 2 people, so there is no question of unequal treatment.  With pedophilia or bestiality, no one is allowed to enter into a marriage contract that cannot legally consent.

I understand that many people think things were equal in that all men were able to marry women and all women were able to marry men.  The courts disagreed with that.  Sorry, but it does not make all forms of romantic or sexual union suddenly able to enter into a legal marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.*

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially?  --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Yep, the law might be different in 12 years. Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point. Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?



No... I think that other similar sexual lifestyles will now start to 'come out of the closet' and push for their "rights" to be legitimized through marriage, same as homosexuals. They will do this using the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, and I have warned of this from the beginning. 

Next up are the Polygamists, they've already started "petitioning for redress" and there is no stopping this choo-choo baby.... it's going to continue. After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.... Oh my!   Boss, you're just being an alarmist, that'll never happen... yet we're only 12 years removed from homosexuality being illegal.  Am I being an alarmist?  Read your Constitution... you've legitimized homosexuality through marriage... the consequence of that action is something society is going to regret and it will happen very quickly.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law.  This has already been said, probably many, many times on this site, including multiple times in this thread.  Pedophilia is illegal.  Bestiality is illegal.  Homosexuality, at least since 2003, is not.  Therefore, two same sex adult partners have a perfectly legal relationship before they decide to marry.  If pedophilia is ever legalized, you might have a point.  If bestiality is ever legalized, you might have a point.  That you are afraid they will seems to indicate an irrational fear, perhaps simply of change, perhaps of homosexuality being accepted, who knows?

S&M is legal, and people who engage in it are and have been able to marry.  It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about S&M as though it is illegal or considered somehow less acceptable than homosexuality.  What other sexual proclivities do you think homosexuality is considered more "okay" to engage in?  Perhaps you are blind and deaf, but let me try to explain : until recently, almost any heterosexual sex acts were considered more "okay" than homosexuality to a large portion of the populace.  They may still be considered more "okay", or more palatable, to a large portion of the populace.  Your intimation that homosexuality is suddenly more acceptable than the myriad forms of sexual activity performed by heterosexuals (and, in most cases I would think, homosexuals as well) is both ridiculous and without evidence that I am aware of.

If you honestly do not see a compelling reason for the state to exclude pedophilia and bestiality from marriage than you not only do not understand consent, you are simply a fool.  I think you are just using hyperbole to try and make a point; I hope it is simply hyperbole.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Actually... in reality... 

In terms of compelling public interests, homosexuality is the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible.  Thus based upon homosexuality deviating a full 180 degrees from the human sexual standard, which is established the human physiological design, the licensing of homosexuality represents the greatest threat to the public interest, where the subjects remain exclusively human.  

Therefore, the public forfeited all means to reasonably hold to any public sexual standard, when it licensed the homosexual degeneracy.   As no other human sexual deviancy represents a threat which is potentially more damaging to the public than homosexuality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law.



Here's the thing on that... and that is that where a culture begins to separate it's laws from accepted morality, the culture is in its final phase.  Which historically speaking, such has been the period where the dying culture also embraces, thus normalizes sexual deviancy.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Actually... in reality...
> 
> In terms of compelling public interests, homosexuality is the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible.  Thus based upon homosexuality deviating a full 180 degrees from the human sexual standard, which is established the human physiological design, the licensing of homosexuality represents the greatest threat to the public interest, where the subjects remain exclusively human.
> 
> Therefore, the public forfeited all means to reasonably hold to any public sexual standard, when it licensed the homosexual degeneracy.   As no other human sexual deviancy represents a threat which is potentially more damaging to the public than homosexuality.



How is homosexuality going to be so damaging to the public?  How is it "the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible"?  Why do you add commas in such strange places?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law.
> ...



Or perhaps you are just unwilling or unable to accept that the accepted morality changes over time and the laws change to reflect that.

Of the many nations and cultures that have come and gone throughout history, how many normalized homosexuality right before they ended?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Actually... in reality...
> ...



Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder, specifically sociopathy; wherein the individuals 'needs' are set above the interests of others.

We see this trait played out throughout our culture everyday now... with homosexuals effectively DARING people to refuse to serve them or to issue them licenses for that which they are wholly unsuited and which stands in direct opposition to people's most closely held principles... often costing them their financial well-being and in some instances their very liberty.

Now that is second only to the endless evidence of homosexual proclivities in the sexual molestation of children, which has in many instances resulted in the child taking its own life... . 




Montrovant said:


> How is it [homosexuality] "the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible"?



Human physiology provides two distinct but complementing genders... each, respective and specifically designed to join with the other.

Homosexuals, by succumbing to their obsessive cravings for sexual gratification through sexual interaction with members of their own gender, they are deviating a full 180 degrees from the human sexual standard.  Where the subjects remain exclusively human, there is no means possible to further deviate from the human sexual standard than homosexuality.

You're invited to offer some example of sexual behavior that deviates further from the *human* sexual standard.    Don't sweat it... I'll be here for ya.

(FYI: Commas represent a pause... Hope that helps.)


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*AGAINNNN....* YOU JUST POINTED OUT that homosexuality *was illegal 12 years ago!*  Within 12 years, we've gone from it being illegal to having it legitimized through marriage as a Constitutional right.  You are telling me that I don't need to worry about these other similar sexual preferences because... they're *illegal!* 

Sorry, but I am a little concerned. Because, frankly... I don't see the difference between a person who prefers sex with same gender partners and a person who prefers sex with anything else. I understand "consent" but that is just a word that we can define to mean virtually anything we please at this point... it doesn't mean jack shit!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Morality is little more than the soundly reasoned recognition of natural principles, or laws of nature that govern human behavior.

Natural laws are immutable; meaning that they do not change. 

What changes is the respect for or awareness of those laws by the people in play at any given moment.

That a given generation is incapable of recognizing these laws, or rejects the existence of such... is irrelevant to the exist of the laws.  And as you may have heard, ignorance of the law is not a viable defense. 

But the simple reality is, that without regard to whether the departure from respect for and adherence to natural law is out of ignorance or hubris, the consequences for failing to adhere to such remains in full force and effect.

And there is no potential upside for having failed to adhere to the laws of nature that govern human behavior... and there is no point in human history where a culture has profited from such.  What's more, no culture that has turned from such, has survived.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sure looks like a slippery slope to me...  closer to an ice laden cliff.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, the law might be different in 12 years. Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point. Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?
> ...



Again, until


Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If you think consent is meaningless you may be a danger to those around you.

Of course we can change laws.  Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down?  Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?  

I'm sure the first time marriage was limited to monogamy, some people railed about the inevitable end of society and horror to humanity.  When arranged marriages without the consent of one or both participants were outlawed, some probably cried about how the morals of society were going to ruin and the end was nigh.  When interracial marriages were made legal, some ranted about the evil and immorality of it and how it would lead to depravity throughout the culture.

I'm telling you you don't have to worry about pedophilia and bestiality because they involve parties unable to give consent.  Homosexuality is not about ability to consent.  It is still illegal to have homosexual relations where one of the parties is underage.  It was illegal for two consenting adults to have homosexual sex.  Again, if you think that consent is going to be thrown out the window in the next decade or so, you are either using hyperbole to try and make a point or a fool.

If it helps, I believe that sexual age of consent laws generally go up, rather than down.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I'm sure the first time marriage was limited to monogamy, some people railed about the inevitable end of society and horror to humanity.



What principle would such an argument rest upon?

Or are you lending credence to unprincipled reasoning?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I suspect that what you call laws of nature are rarely laws or rules.  What law of nature is broken by homosexuality?  Men and women are required to have children....but that's true for homosexuals as well.  Sexual gratification and love, on the other hand, do not require a particular gender, or even a partner.

You can call your own moral standards laws of nature but it does not make them such.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the first time marriage was limited to monogamy, some people railed about the inevitable end of society and horror to humanity.
> ...



I'm not a polygamist, so I don't have anything but supposition.  Perhaps it was a religious argument; the god or gods believed in by the polygamists called for that kind of marriage.  Perhaps that there would be too many unmarried women unable to care for themselves.  Despite some of the claims I've seen when same sex marriage is discussed, marriage has not been a static institution throughout history.  If it has changed in the past without bringing about the downfall of humanity or even the end of a country, it likely can do so again.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?



I don't know... did people think 12 years ago that the illegal act of homosexuality would be cauterized into law, legitimized through marriage and made a Constitutional right by an activist Supreme Court? 

Age of consent used to be MUCH lower. In fact, a naturalist would argue the age of consent, when it comes to sexual relations, should be set at puberty because that is when females and males become physically and sexually mature. It is only the aspects of religiously-based morality that prevents such things now. And the same goes for zoophilia. 

Now you can argue that under *current definition*, animals cannot consent... but as we see, current definitions can be changed on a whim by an activist court. If animals cannot consent, then no one should be able to "own" animals. If they are unable to give consent, they are unable to be held accountable to the law and therefore, are not subject to the law... they don't have to give consent. How is it harming others? What's the _compelling state interests_ to prevent it? There are none, especially since you've legitimized sexual behavior as a Constitutional right.  You're going to have to live with that... we all are. Thanks!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I suspect that what you call laws of nature are rarely laws or rules.



I hear ya...

Sadly your suspicions are baseless.  Allow me to demonstrate:



Montrovant said:


> What law of nature is broken by homosexuality?



That would be the law of nature wherein the human species was designed with two distinct, but complementing genders.  Each specifically and respectively designed to join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.

It's the same law, which establishes monogamy as the sustainable behavior, in terms of human sexual behavior.

We know this because where the law is respected, one will never be infected by a venereal disease... just as we know that the human sexual standard is sustainable, as absent homosexuals being entered into the mix; which is to say those that reject adherence to the human sexual standard, one has roughly zero chance of contracting THE *HIV;* which is among the deadliest viruses on earth; which is just one, among the host of unenviable consequences that come with ignoring the law of nature that establish the human sexual norm.

_See how that works_?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So... you _ARE_ lending credence to unprincipled reasoning. 

I gotta be honest... I was pretty sure that was your camp.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?
> ...



Wait, did you actually just argue that in order to own an animal it must be able to give consent?  So owning animals is disallowed, unless it constitutes slavery?  

You are correct, age of consent used to be lower.  That, of course, means that it has been raised.  Yet here you are, terrified that it is going to go down again because gays can marry.  Again .

Animals are not subject to the laws governing human behavior.  We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.

What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality?  How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape?  Oh, I'm sure you'll argue that somehow gay marriage makes those things no longer of import, as though allowing homosexuals to have civil marriage is an end to the rule of law.  I'm not sure why this particular issue destroys all possible arguments for regulations on marriage or sex but other changes to laws about sex didn't.  It couldn't have anything to do with a bias against homosexuals on your part, though, since you are so much more tolerant that most people!

The Supreme Court legitimized a right to privacy in striking down state sodomy laws.  Obergefell was about equal access to marriage contract law, not sexual behavior.  Sexual behavior is not marriage, nor is any particular sexual behavior required for marriage.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that what you call laws of nature are rarely laws or rules.
> ...



Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior?  I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?  Has every human who has ever had sexual relations outside a single monogamous relationship been breaking a law of nature?  Not a particularly compelling law, is it?  

I still consider your 'laws of nature' to be little more than your own belief about the optimal human relationship.  I can accept the requirement for a male and female to procreate as a law of nature, but beyond that, it's a question of morality, not natural law.  The two seem to be one and the same in your mind.


----------



## skye (Sep 17, 2015)

It's harder

it's harder to condemn homos when you have  a loved one being homo.....and all that...etc...etc...

life is not an easy thing................oh well


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why was Pandora's Box not opened when marriage laws were changed in the past?
> ...



Marriage never was- and still hasn't been about sexual behavior.


----------



## skye (Sep 17, 2015)

I hate all this thing.... I do not want to know your likes in sex ok?

I am so old fashion.....

do not dare

to ask


and so


don;t have to tell shit

I like it like that ...for them


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ... until a mere 12 years ago, it was still illegal to have homosexual sex in some places. Now, suddenly, you are talking about present day?
> ...



I see gays being treated equally every day by basically everyone around me.

You say you have gay friends- but apparently you don't treat them equally?

See- I treat my friends equally- regardless of their color, their religion, gender, sexual preference, hair color, height.

It seems to me that the problem is not with gays- but with you.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why was Pandora's Box not opened when marriage laws were changed in the past?
> ...



You keep saying that like your statement means something.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for some 11 years- still no legalization of polygamy- still no legal sibling marriage.

And why is it you can't tell the difference between consenting adults getting married- and men raping 4 year old girls?


----------



## skye (Sep 17, 2015)

Keep yourself in the closet 

ok?

do all of us a favor!

do not ask do not tell!

ok?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Actually... in reality...
> .



Not a single one of your posts bears any resemblence to reality. 

Not one.


----------



## skye (Sep 17, 2015)

all is ok

but

please

do not shove your shit

down our throats

is that fair?

yes it is


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well lets break your comparisons down- shall we?

Homosexual behavior versus 'pedophilia behavior'- i.e. sex between two consenting adults versus a man raping a 4 year old girl.

What in your eyes makes these two acts 'similar'? 

You say you have friends that are homosexuals.

Do you have friends that are pedophiles?

Would you accept as your friend a man who was raping 4 year old girls?

Since you think of homosexuality and pedophilia as 'similar'?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, the law might be different in 12 years. Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point. Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?
> ...



Not alarmists- you are just demonstrating you cannot differentiate between consensual sex between adults- and child rape.

And that is scary.


----------



## skye (Sep 17, 2015)

homosexuals can go on doing what they do

only

don't try to shove it

down our throats

that is all


----------



## skye (Sep 17, 2015)

I have a problem with that ok?


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 18, 2015)

skye said:


> homosexuals can go on doing what they do
> 
> only
> 
> ...



Oh, you mean like introducing our spouses as our spouses and stuff? 

Why do you folks always use such homoerotic imagery?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior?  I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?



What evidence are you using to conclude that humanity is presently operating on a sustainable course?




Montrovant said:


> Has every human who has ever had sexual relations outside a single monogamous relationship been breaking a law of nature?  Not a particularly compelling law, is it?



Yes... and yes.

I'd submit the kids who find themselves knocked up and married scuttling their would-be plans to become something other than what they've become... married and ignorant, in low paying jobs, living in squaller with little hope of escaping... because they violated that law. 

I'd also submit the little girl who sits in shame,  a paper gown, alone... waiting for some pathetic wretch to come disembowel her first child and scrape it from her womb; from which she leaves, still immersed in shame, forced to bear her secret that she murdered her first child... over a life of irretrievable regret.

Pretty steep price for a little sweaty wigglin'.



Montrovant said:


> I still consider your 'laws of nature' to be little more than your own belief about the optimal human relationship.



Of course ya do... you're animated largely by evil... having lost kinship with your own soul.

The good news is that it's there... you just need to find the strength of courage to reason objectively and it will come to you.

The bad news is that absent the means to do so, you'll be less likely to adhere to those laws and subsequently be subjected to the heavy price of a lifetime of experiences, subject to that failure.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again, you're not thinking past the head of your gay dick. You view this as some isolated thing that doesn't have any effect on anything else because you've convinced yourself that is the case. I'm trying to explain how something like this has ramifications but instead of taking my points seriously, you simply dismiss them because they haven't yet happened.

*We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.*

Which of our laws are animals expected to obey, dipshit? Let's try to stay in context. We have laws regarding human treatment of animals. Most of those are based on some religious moral foundation... so there goes _THAT!_  Animals can't be required to give consent for the same reason they aren't expected to follow the law. They are not under jurisdiction of the law so consent simply doesn't apply. With the consent issue rendered invalid, the only constraint is a moral religious belief that humans shouldn't fuck animals.

As with gay marriage, all we need is a group who claims discrimination. Presto-chango... zoophilia becomes legalized then legitimized through marriage. In 20 years, people can't be denied the right to marry the pig they love. You can't stop this ride because you don't like it anymore. You are strapped in and you're going to ride it all the way down.

*What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality?  How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape?*

What the hell are you mumbling around about here? Spit it out, boy! Make your case! We've already established that animals can't give consent and aren't subject to rule of law... so there goes that reason... gone! *POOF!*  What is this "maintain the viability of other laws" shit? It's too late to be worrying about maintaining viability of other laws, you've struck them down on the basis that you want homosexuals to have the right to legitimize their behavior through marriage, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Oh, you can hem-haw around and jawbone about maintaining viability... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again, it seems to be YOU living in DENAIL of the ramifications of your actions.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your veneer of tolerance (which, admittedly, was thin to begin with) is starting to slip.

You are trying to explain that you think the sky is falling.  I can see that.  In your opinion, allowing same sex marriage requires all forms of marriage to be legal.  That is clearly nonsense, but you're free to believe it.  I've already happily conceded that it is possible for consent laws to be changed.  What you dismiss is the fact that they could have been changed without any gay marriage ruling.  You ignore the fact that marriage laws have changed in various ways over time, assuming that only THIS particular change is going to cause a flood of depravity.

You assume bestiality will be legalized because.....the gays!  Obviously any claim of discrimination for any reason is automatically accepted by the USSC, right?  

You continue to show that you have no real concept of consent.  As far as you are concerned it is a meaningless concept now that same sex marriage is legal.  Your reasoning behind that is.....well, I'm still not sure how you have decided the two are connected.  Because denying same sex couples access to marriage laws was deemed unconstitutional, consent laws are unconstitutional?  Again, that's nonsense, but have fun with it.  Why don't you get together with Silhouette and exchange idiotic legal predictions?  

Oh, and I see the religion coming to the fore, as is usual for you.  There can be no morality without religion, are you really going to trot that one out?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > homosexuals can go on doing what they do
> ...



Why are you bothering to respond to Skye's odd haiku?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior?  I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?
> ...



Sustainable? Well we certainly are producing more humans than necessary to maintain our population. 

Sustainable- in the long term, environmentally its questionable.

Somehow I doubt your concerns are for anything so concrete as the health of the human population.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You keep making your predictions of doom- based entirely upon your anti-gay paranoia. 

There is nothing serious to take about your posts- you just say you believe this will happen- even though there is absolutely no evidence it will. Why should anyone take that crap seriously?

You don't understand what the Supreme Courts decision actually was. You can't seem to tell the difference between a homosexual and a rapist. 

Why should we take anything you say seriously?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We have laws regarding the humane treatment of animals. But bestiality? 

Alabama just outlawed bestiality in 2014. 13 states have no laws against bestiality.

So tell me- how does homosexuality being legal somehow mean the end of laws against bestiality when the law is moving the other direction.

As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals. 

The trends are opposite.

Each of your posts just demonstrates that you do not understand what the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell- and also clearly in Lawrence v. Texas.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> [
> *What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality?  How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape?*
> .



Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.

Why do you- and pretty much every homophobe- either not understand what consent is- or care what consent is?

Why do you equate consensual sex between two adult women with a 50 year old man raping a 4 year old girl?


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You're making all sorts of wild ass assumptions about what I've said. I did not say the sky was falling. I said there would be ramifications and consequences by legitimizing homosexuality through marriage. There are already legal cases in the works for polygamy. I never said anything about a "flood of depravity" it's going to take some time but it will eventually come because you've removed the barriers. 

I did not say bestiality would be legalized "because ...the gays." That's a smart ass sarcastic quip designed to marginalize the point I made. It's just another of your dishonest attempts to deflect an opposing opinion. The SCOTUS has established as matter of law that marriage is a right which must be afforded on the basis of sexuality instead of being the union of a male and female. Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles, zoophiliacs, necrophiliacs or any other sexual preference. ALL of them were completely able to obtain a marriage license without discrimination in all 50 states... MARRIAGE being the union of a man and woman. Heterosexuals weren't being allowed to have same-sex unions to the exclusion of gays. THAT is the dynamic you would need in order to claim an inequality. BUT... the way you have defined it, the "right" must also extend to anyone else who wants it. We don't have laws that apply to THIS group but not THAT group. It's the Equal Protection clause and this will come back to haunt you. 

And again... I fully understand consent. Just like I understand marriage is the union of a male and female. What I have learned is, it really doesn't matter what I currently understand, the SCOTUS has made it clear they can redefine words to mean what they want them to. In fact, "consent" is an easier parameter to change than "marriage." 

*Oh, and I see the religion coming to the fore, as is usual for you.  There can be no morality without religion, are you really going to trot that one out?*

We can trot it out if you like... as soon as you show me a moral we have that isn't rooted in a religious philosophy, I will admit that religion has nothing to do with morals. Until then, you're pissing in the wind. Every moral of western civilization is rooted in Judeo-Christian religious principle. That's just a fact of life. Sorry if that bothers you. I'm not a religious person, I am not here to argue religion... to the contrary, I am saying that we have now established that religion can't have a place at the table anymore when it comes to Constitutional rights. Therefore, your legitimate arguments against things like zoophilia have been destroyed. 

What you seem to be doing now is playing favorites with sexual proclivities. Homosexuality has somehow been raised above all others and legitimized. On what Constitutional basis are you doing this? You don't really have an answer, just more bluster and sarcasm.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.



Again...

1) Animals do not have to give consent since they are not under jurisdiction of the law. 
2) The legal definition of consent can be changed even easier than the definition of marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals.



And it's "unconstitutional" now. You can't give rights to one group and exclude another similar group. Sexual proclivities constitute the group in this context. Under the SCOTUS ruling, all sexual proclivities have the same marital rights as homosexuals if we adhere to the Constitution. 

It's like trying to say women have equal pay rights as long as they are blond and have big tits... brunettes and flat-chested women aren't included because we don't like how they look. You see... this is unconstitutional... we're discriminating against a similar group. As much as you may not like zoophiliacs, they have the same Constitutional rights as homosexual people. Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc. It includes incest relationships and polygamy as well. All of them now have a legitimate Constitutional claim to rights through marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals.
> ...



Again you are just demonstrating you do not have a clue what the Supreme Court ruled in either Obergefell or Lawrence v. Texas.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I have already given an example of how equal protection could be argued for same sex marriage without using sexuality as the basis.  Gender works as a basis.  That, however, is immaterial as the USSC ruled that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.  

So because you disagree with a Supreme Court decision, all laws are meaningless?  Sorry, not a particularly compelling argument.

Your lack of religion is as convincing as your tolerance.

You never used the phrase flood of depravity.  However, in this very post, you have strongly implied that pedophiles, zoophiles, and necrophiliacs must end up being allowed to marry the person or object of their choice because of the ruling about same sex marriage.  

I didn't remove any barriers.  I haven't defined any rights.  I am not a member of the Supreme Court, nor am I a lawyer, nor was I one of the parties involved in Obergefell.  I guess you find it easier to put anyone who disagrees with you into the same box?

If you are really so terrified that these kinds of non-consenting relationships are going to be found as rights by the court, perhaps you should push for a new constitutional amendment.  

I just have bluster and sarcasm?  Actually, I have the decision of the Supreme Court and various state and federal laws upon which I can base my argument.  You are the one who is blustering and wailing about pedophiles and necrophiliacs being granted the ability to ignore laws of consent.  I do have sarcasm, but what can I say?  Your posts invite it.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.
> ...



Marriage is a consensual relationship. You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage- no matter how much you want to marry your favorite cow.

The legal definition of consent can change- of course it can- and that has absolutely nothing to do with either homosexuality or marriage.

The only person seeming to have issues with the concept of consent here in this thread is you.

Two men consenting to marry each other- that is an action with consent.
A 50 year old man raping a 4 year old girl- that is an action without consent.

You do not seem to understand the difference.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Removed what barriers?

Same gender couples can now marry. 50 years ago mixed race couples were allowed to legally marry. Barriers do get removed.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals.
> ...



When did that happen?

Please feel free to refer to the court decision, and a quote from that decision.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*...You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage...*

That is YOUR opinion. You're not a radical liberal Supreme Court in 12 years, faced with giving a poor discriminated-against zoophiliac the "right" to marry the pig he loves... the same as homosexuals have. Now... You might be a Conservative by then and you might be telling some smart ass know-it-all punk Liberal that this is crazy and ridiculous and wasn't what gay marriage ever intended to cause, and they might call you a bigoted zooaphobe. 

91-year-old senile Justice Kennedy will posit that marriage is a consensual relationship but since animals have no wherewithal to legally consent, nor an obligation under the law to do so, that this criteria defaults to their owners. No different than dressing your poodle in tiny costumes or entering your horse in a race. Consent is not needed from an animal other than another human, nor is it required (or can it be) under the law. He will find that this cannot interfere with the "right" of the person to legitimately marry the animal he/she loves. 

Again... parameters of "consent" are easier to change than parameters of "marriage."


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes that is my opinion- based upon the actual law right now. Your opinion is based upon your fantasy. 

This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia. 

If you want to change consent so you can marry your cow- your burden is the same now as it was before Obergefell. There is nothing about the Obergefell decision that changes in anyway the legal barriers to you marrying your cow.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And changing the parameters of 'consent' have nothing to do with whether gay couples can legally marry or not.

You want to change consent laws- you have the same exact burden now as you did before Obergefell.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Yes that is my opinion- based upon the actual law right now.



No... based on YOUR interpretation of the law. You are not a Supreme Court justice.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yes that is my opinion- based upon the actual law right now.
> ...



True- and neither are you.

However there is no Supreme Court justice which has said that they agree with you.

But the majority of Supreme Court justices said that marriage is a right- and that right cannot be denied to same gender couples.

That really bothers you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Your veneer of tolerance (which, admittedly, was thin to begin with) is starting to slip.



Tolerance of degeneracy is a vice... not a virtue.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia.



Actually it's not and it offends me that this keeps being implied. I have patiently gone out of my way to explain that I have no problem with gay people and some of my dearest friends are gay. It hurts my heart that people are so closed-minded on this that they don't understand my position is not homophobia. But I can't do anything about your bigotry toward me personally. That is something YOU have to answer for, not me. 

MY state is taking the initiative to change the laws so that the State doesn't issue marriage licenses anymore. Done... we're out of the marriage business, as all government should be! All throughout the course of this debate, I have been a staunch supporter of some kind of civil union contract to completely replace marriage licenses and government only recognizing civil partnerships. People and churches can call marriage whatever they want to. It resolves the problem for everyone and ostensibly gives all sides what they claim to want.... but no one was interested in my idea. 

You and Montro along with the rest of your Merry Band, are political hacks who are exploiting this issue in order to bash Christians and Conservatives and generate buzz among your voting base. That's really ALL it's about for you... none of you give two shits about gay people.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> However there is no Supreme Court justice which has said that they agree with you.



It's because the case hasn't come before them yet, idiot.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> But the majority of Supreme Court justices said that marriage is a right- and that right cannot be denied to same gender couples.



All I've said is it can't be denied to other couples. 

So far, I have not seen any sufficient explanation given as to why it can be.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 18, 2015)

The below exchange was read by the would-be _'contributor'_ and was ignored... .

In ignoring the responses, the would-be _'contributor', _has now conceded to the standing points advanced in the exchange. 

I re-post it below to note and accept the would-be_ 'contributor's _concession.



Montrovant said:


> Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior?  I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?



What evidence are you using to conclude that humanity is presently operating on a sustainable course?




Montrovant said:


> Has every human who has ever had sexual relations outside a single monogamous relationship been breaking a law of nature?  Not a particularly compelling law, is it?



Yes... and yes.

I'd submit the kids who find themselves knocked up and married scuttling their would-be plans to become something other than what they've become... married and ignorant, in low paying jobs, living in squaller with little hope of escaping... because they violated that law.

I'd also submit the little girl who sits in shame,  a paper gown, alone... waiting for some pathetic wretch to come disembowel her first child and scrape it from her womb; from which she leaves, still immersed in shame, forced to bear her secret that she murdered her first child... over a life of irretrievable regret.

Pretty steep price for a little sweaty wigglin'.



Montrovant said:


> I still consider your 'laws of nature' to be little more than your own belief about the optimal human relationship.



Of course ya do... you're animated largely by evil... having lost kinship with your own soul.

The good news is that it's there... you just need to find the strength of courage to reason objectively and it will come to you.

The bad news is that absent the means to do so, you'll be less likely to adhere to those laws and subsequently be subjected to the heavy price of a lifetime of experiences, subject to that failure.

Edit: Your failure to sustain a viable contest has resulted in your concession and that concession is hereby _*Duly noted and summarily accepted*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> ... MY state is taking the initiative to change the laws so that the State doesn't issue marriage licenses anymore. Done... we're out of the marriage business, as all government should be! ...



Oh I wholly disagree with this point.  I understand how it makes sense to some, but the simple fact is that we, governs ourselves... the notion that 'the government' is some entity unto itself is a sign that 'the government' no longer represents US... .  And as a consequence, the government should be disbanded and a new government that does represent us, set in it's place.

The problem with that, is that there are those who claim the government does represent them... you're half-wit opponent is one of them.

That individual represents 2% of the human population.  Add to that the Left which is using the degenerates as a political constituency and they enjoy perhaps 20% of the population.

This changes nothing, because a government that represents their interests, cannot represent mine.  

Thus we're down to the inevitable... wherein the US will soon be shoved into a bloody civil war, where that minority will be destroyed, entirely.  And with them, the government that represents them.

At that point the Americans will rebuild a new government, established upon the principles that originally founded the US and the Old US Constitution that limited the scope and power of the Federal Government... or perhaps we will not have a Federal Government and merely operate as the respective states within the frame work of the new boundaries formed up, when the Leftist States are eviscerated and burned, their inhabitant enslaved, their holdings captured and stripped from them as the spoils of war.

I understand that this is distasteful to some and that's fine... but their distaste for what is inevitable and otherwise wholly unavoidable... is quite irrelevant.  Unless and until they find the means to help the degenerates and their proponents to find the strength of character to respect the rights of others and not force their debauchery into places and upon person where such is not welcome.

And as you have witnessed for some 20 pages... there is no chance of that happening, thus there is no means to avoid such, rendering back to quite inevitable.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > But the majority of Supreme Court justices said that marriage is a right- and that right cannot be denied to same gender couples.
> ...



Marriage can't be denied to any couples who are allowed to marry according to the law. The Supreme Court overturned laws banning mixed race marriages and 'gay marriages'- so those couples legally allowed to marry.

Incestuous marriage is still illegal- and can and are denied to those couples- unless someone can either persuade States to change their laws or convince a court that States have no compelling interest in denying them their right to marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > However there is no Supreme Court justice which has said that they agree with you.
> ...



LOL.....and again- there is no Supreme Court justice which agrees with you.

All you have is your opinion based upon your lack of understanding of Obergefell and Lawrence v. Texas.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 18, 2015)

heh I say bring it on, let the "Christian Army" go forth and try to wreck havoc again; as they did with the crusades, the witch trials, even the Mormon's...  I hope they find that in a connected world, in a truly "fair" America, they'll be met with resistance they /should/ have met in the beginning and finally be put in their place in our "free" country.

I have no issue with what one wishes to believe right up until, until it infringes upon the constitutional rights of another.  I will stand against /anyone/ who does so, and if you morons want to bring it to violent arms, then so be it.  Lets see just how many "faithful Christians" you can get to commit suicide in the "name of god" today (these days?)  Lets just see how many atrocities against humans modern American's will allow you...

(Yes, my opinion is biased - I have a dislike for organized religion because it's not about "faith" but rather about control.)


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia.
> ...



You say that- yet at the same time you keep making statements attacking gay people- based upon nothing but your own personal feelings. Frankly if any friend of mine was as disgusted with me as you seem to be with your gay friends, I would have nothing to do with that 'friend'. 

Your quotes- this is what you are telling your 'friends'

_Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU..._

_start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture

Well, I am tired of placating you and pandering to your needs. Grow the fuck up and accept that some people don't approve of your sexual deviant behavior._

_One of these days, I can see them cheering a law making it acceptable for gay people to molest heterosexuals

At what point will homosexuals be satisfied? I don't think there IS a point. I think this is a futile effort and maybe we need to reconsider our positions?_

And of course my favorite of yours- where you compare homosexuals to pedophiles_

Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?_

as you do again here:

_The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.
_
Do you 'friends' enjoy it when you tell them that you think of them just like you think of pedophiles?

You claim to be 'tolerant' of homosexuals yet this entire thread is a butt hurt rant by you against homosexuals- and your butt hurt that they now have something close to equal rights with heterosexuals.

You have made idiotic predictions of dire consequences for the future with nothing more than your idiotic interpretation of what the Supreme Court said to base it upon. 

You say thats not homophobia?

What do your 'friends' say?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia.
> ...



LOL.....oh shall we compare.

You show me my quotes in this thread bashing Christians.

Here is a quote from you bashing homosexuals.

_Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US!_

Unlike yourself- I have actual gay friends. I celebrate their weddings- and I celebrated with them when the Supreme Court made their marriages legal across the United States. 

Unlike yourself- I am not starting a thread about how we should not tolerate homosexuals- how we should be condemning homosexuals. 

That is all you.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL.....and again- there is no Supreme Court justice which agrees with you.



Again... *No case*, so how can you say what the SCOTUS does or does not agree with?


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yes, you are taking the OP out of context as I predicted would happen in the first paragraph. No surprise. The quote you are citing is me paraphrasing what society perhaps should have said when homosexuality was legalized. I did not present it as a statement of my personal beliefs and to quote it as if I did is completely dishonest. But... you're a dishonest person... I don't believe you have gay friends or know very many gay people. You probably wouldn't associate with someone if you found out they were gay. Liberals like you are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. You stereotype entire groups and form an opinion based on your bigoted view and the same is certainly true when it comes to gay people. 

The ONLY thing you celebrated was an activist liberal SCOTUS making a ruling that allows you to flaunt it in the face of Christians and Conservatives for political advantage. The thing you need to know is, you're not the only ones who are going to use it for political advantage.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.....and again- there is no Supreme Court justice which agrees with you.
> ...



So we are in agreement- you have no basis of support from the Supreme Court.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well not sure how that changes anything. 

You started a thread saying that society should not accept homosexuality- giving the words you think society should have said- which are indeed your words- not societies.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> So we are in agreement- you have no basis of support from the Supreme Court.



No.. There has not been a case brought to the Supreme Court. We are not in agreement on basis of support because that is an unknown until a case is heard. You've presented your opinion and I've presented mine. Your opinion basically refutes mine on the basis of your opinion and my opinion is based on what the Constitution says.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well we are both anonymous here so everything you say can be- and is probably bullshit- and you can decide to believe that anything I say is probably bullshit- and that is fine with me- I know what is fact and fiction.

My best man was/is gay. I have been friends with him for over 30 years. My best friend(other than my wife) is gay. I have celebrated my friend's weddings, marched in the SF Pride Parade, mourned gay friends who passed away from AIDs.  

Believe what you want.

However- I am the one celebrating that Americans are now allowed to legally marry- regardless of whether they are gay or not.

You think that they should not be allowed to legally marry.

I am the one celebrating that Americans who are gay have achieved almost legal parity with straight Americans- you deny that they ever were discriminated against. 

I am the one who doesn't equate homosexuals with pedophiles. You are the one who does.

Yeah- either you or I can be bullshitting about our gay friends.

But I argue on behalf of Americans who happen to be gay- you argue that Americans should have said

_Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU.._


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > So we are in agreement- you have no basis of support from the Supreme Court.
> ...



Your opinion is based upon your prejudice against homosexuals and your butt hurt that they can marry. It has no basis in the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes examples of gay Americans who can now legally marry. 

But what I have celebrated is gay Americans being allowed to legally marry in all 50 states exactly as my wife and I were legally entitled to.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Well not sure how that changes anything.
> 
> You started a thread saying that society should not accept homosexuality- giving the words you think society should have said- which are indeed your words- not societies.



No I didn't. I started a thread saying it would have been easier for society to condemn homosexuality. I never said society should not accept homosexuality. That's what you want to imply that I said because you're a dishonest person. 

There is dishonesty in virtually every post you make. It's like a problem with you. It goes on in every thread about every topic and it has gone on for all the time I've been on USMB, and others can attest to this as well. You are basically a dishonest person who can't tell the truth even when you try to tell the truth... like here in this post. You've completely gotten what I stated wrong and it's even the title of the fucking thread.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, it's based on the Equal Protection clause as I thoroughly explained and you couldn't refute.

Now, you are trying to win the argument by denigration. That won't work with me.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes examples of gay Americans who can now legally marry.



They can't in Alabama. We don't do marriage licenses anymore... Now what, smart ass?


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes examples of gay Americans who can now legally marry.
> ...



Got a link?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well not sure how that changes anything.
> ...



Yeah- you really did say society should not accept homosexuality. You just can't be honest enough to admit that you think your 'friends' are perverts and that society should say that something is wrong with gay people. 

_When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!_

.....

_Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and *start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore.* If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal._

Your words- not mine.

Your whole thread is a call to action for Americans to no longer tolerate homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes examples of gay Americans who can now legally marry.
> ...



Americans can indeed get married in Alabama- no matter how much you object to it- you really are an idiot.

Alabama is issuing marriage licenses today and will be tomorrow. 

Alabama Marriage License Vote
_*Alabama* A proposal to get the state of Alabama out of the marriage business has failed within the state legislature. The Alabama House has not approved a proposal that was previously given the green light by the state senate. The bill would have done away with state issued marriage licenses. Wednesday's vote in the Alabama House was 53 to 36 in favor of the measure. However, two-third's approval was needed in that chamber for the bill to pass. That approval rating was needed because the item was not on Governor Robert Bentley's agenda for the special session._

Even if the bill had passed- Alabamans would still have been getting legally married- 

_If the measure would have passed it would have virtually taken the state of Alabama out of the marriage business. Instead, it would have required couples to take a signed marriage contract and file it with the probate office._

Today- tomorrow- Alabamans can still get married.

No matter how much that offends you.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No I don't actually have a link. They approved a bill in the Senate and it passed the house 53-36 but since it wasn't on the governor's agenda it required a super-majority vote to pass. This is a minor technicality and eventually will be law of the land in Alabama. In the meantime, numerous counties have ceased issuing marriage licenses. And I predict others will follow suit. You cannot compel the State to issue marriage licenses.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well not sure how that changes anything.
> ...



Hah!  You wrote all the things that Syriusly quoted, you started a thread in which you question whether society will reject tolerance of gays because they can't be appeased, because they are changing the laws, and whatever other unacceptable attempt at equality and tolerance you bemoan.  You start off a post in this thread like this :


Boss said:


> Again, you're not thinking past the head of your gay dick.


Yet still you want to proclaim your tolerance and acceptance of gays.  Your OP was, I think, completely intentional in its implications.  Whether they reflect your feelings or not I can't say, but I think you purposely wrote the OP to imply that you think society should stop tolerating gays.  Maybe you were just trolling, maybe your claims of tolerance are lies, I don't know.  If you don't see how someone reading your OP and your subsequent posts in this thread would get the impression that you think tolerance of gays should stop, you aren't paying attention to your own writing.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2015)

I think it's pointless tolerating you. Look where it's getting me? I've been called every name in the book here. You've kind of made my point for me. It's not possible to tolerate those who are bound to be intolerable. It would have been easier for society to have condemned homosexuality when they had the chance. Obviously, society thought it would be easier to tolerate it... look it where it leads us. We made it acceptable to be gay, struck down the sodomy laws, and society embraced the gay community... was that enough? No! Does anyone get any credit for that? No! Some of the very same people who stood up against homosexuals being locked up for their acts are now being called bigots and homophobes because they oppose gay marriage on religious or moral grounds. I know this to be true because I was one of those people. 

YOU are responsible for me second-guessing my choices. YOU are the one who is pushing me to my limits of patience and tolerance. It's not ME doing it... it's YOU!  I've accepted gay people, I have no problem with anyone's sexuality. I don't think the government should have the authority to define marriage for the people. I don't agree that marriage is a right. I don't agree that marriage can be anything other than the union of a man and woman, and I won't believe anything differently as long as I live. You're not ever going to force me to accept it. I also have no problem with gay people wanting to call their relationships marriage... I don't have to acknowledge it and I'm not going to. You're not ever going to force me to.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



'minor technicality' as in you were completely wrong- the law has not passed. 
 Alabama is still issuing marriage licenses.
And even with the proposed change to marriage laws- Alabamans- whether gay or straight- will continue to be able to get married in Alabama.

Your post was 100% wrong.

You just aren't able to admit it.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think it's pointless tolerating you. Look where it's getting me? I've been called every name in the book here. You've kind of made my point for me. It's not possible to tolerate those who are bound to be intolerable. It would have been easier for society to have condemned homosexuality when they had the chance. Obviously, society thought it would be easier to tolerate it... look it where it leads us. We made it acceptable to be gay, struck down the sodomy laws, and society embraced the gay community... was that enough? No! Does anyone get any credit for that? No! Some of the very same people who stood up against homosexuals being locked up for their acts are now being called bigots and homophobes because they oppose gay marriage on religious or moral grounds. I know this to be true because I was one of those people..



Why exactly do you imagine that I have to 'tolerate' you opinion any more than you have to tolerate my opinion? Far from being called 'every name under the book' you have been called a homophobe for starting an anti-gay thread. I have been called far, far worse simply for stating that I believe homosexuals should be able to legally marry exactly as my wife and I are married. If you don't have the stones to be criticized for your opinions- then don't start a thread that you know was an attack on homosexuals. 

Why do you think you get a big attaboy because the Supreme Court struck down a law you approved of? 
Society has largely been dragged kicking and screaming into treating homosexual Americans equally. Hell whole states went to the trouble to change their marriage laws to prevent homosexuals from marrying. 

The people- meaning 1 person- who has been locked up- was locked up for disobeying a court order. Does she get called names for her stance? Yes she does. Do gays get called names for wanting to get married- yes they do. 

I have seen nothing in this thread about tolerance of homosexuals- except you telling us you are tolerant- while telling us that America shouldn't be tolerant. 

Doesn't sound very tolerant to me.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> YOU are responsible for me second-guessing my choices. YOU are the one who is pushing me to my limits of patience and tolerance. It's not ME doing it... it's YOU! .



So you blame everyone else for your posts? For how you think? 

Be a man- don't blame others for who you are.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think it's pointless tolerating you. Look where it's getting me? I've been called every name in the book here. You've kind of made my point for me. It's not possible to tolerate those who are bound to be intolerable. It would have been easier for society to have condemned homosexuality when they had the chance. Obviously, society thought it would be easier to tolerate it... look it where it leads us. We made it acceptable to be gay, struck down the sodomy laws, and society embraced the gay community... was that enough? No! Does anyone get any credit for that? No! Some of the very same people who stood up against homosexuals being locked up for their acts are now being called bigots and homophobes because they oppose gay marriage on religious or moral grounds. I know this to be true because I was one of those people.
> 
> YOU are responsible for me second-guessing my choices. YOU are the one who is pushing me to my limits of patience and tolerance. It's not ME doing it... it's YOU!  I've accepted gay people, I have no problem with anyone's sexuality. I don't think the government should have the authority to define marriage for the people. I don't agree that marriage is a right. I don't agree that marriage can be anything other than the union of a man and woman, and I won't believe anything differently as long as I live. You're not ever going to force me to accept it. I also have no problem with gay people wanting to call their relationships marriage... I don't have to acknowledge it and I'm not going to. You're not ever going to force me to.



Who is the 'we' that made it 'acceptable to be gay'?  The 'we' that struck down the sodomy laws?  I hate to inform you but for many, being gay is still not acceptable.  A brief perusal of any thread on this site about gays will make that clear.  Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court.....you know, the court which you are railing against for striking down laws banning same sex marriage?

You want credit for making it acceptable to be gay?  You want credit for striking down sodomy laws?  Do you actually think you were responsible for either of those things?

I would be perfectly happy if all marriages were changed into civil unions insofar as the law is concerned.  I've advocated that before on this site.  I realize that, at least presently, it is an unrealistic hope.  People are far too wedded (pun intended ) to the word marriage to give it up.

You don't have to believe that marriage is a right or that marriage is anything but a man and a woman.  You can believe what you want.  It is still the law, whatever you believe.  If you think that is 'forcing you' to believe.....well, that's a problem for you I suppose.  It's unfortunate for you if you think what the law is determines your beliefs.

You certainly are showing a thin skin for someone who started a thread designed to cause controversy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 18, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> heh I say bring it on, let the "Christian Army" go forth and try to wreck havoc again; as they did with the crusades, the witch trials, even the Mormon's...  I hope they find that in a connected world, in a truly "fair" America, they'll be met with resistance they /should/ have met in the beginning and finally be put in their place in our "free" country.
> 
> I have no issue with what one wishes to believe right up until, until it infringes upon the constitutional rights of another.  I will stand against /anyone/ who does so, and if you morons want to bring it to violent arms, then so be it.  Lets see just how many "faithful Christians" you can get to commit suicide in the "name of god" today (these days?)  Lets just see how many atrocities against humans modern American's will allow you...
> 
> (Yes, my opinion is biased - I have a dislike for organized religion because it's not about "faith" but rather about control.)



LOL!

Yes... we're the intolerant ones.

The war is coming Prog.  We will not start it.  But we will finish it and when it is finished, there will not be a Leftist alive anywhere in what was once the CONUS.

So the sooner you start it, the sooner you get your wish.

As far as I'm concerned, _now_ works.


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Far from being called 'every name under the book' you have been called a homophobe for starting an anti-gay thread.



Anti-gay-marriage is not anti-gay. The same as anti-illegal-immigration isn't anti-immigration. 

That's the closed minded and bigoted view I am talking about. I realized the thread would be controversial and I would be called names. I stated that in paragraph one. 

I am a reasonable person. I can meet just about anyone half way on just about anything. But this isn't something the left wants to meet half way on. You've got your banner to wave and you've picked your mountain to die on. No one can reason with you which is why I said, we would have been better off to have dismissed you from the outset.

I know people who are gay and opposed to gay marriage... So do you also consider them "anti-gay"?


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court.....you know, the court which you are railing against for striking down laws banning same sex marriage?
> 
> You want credit for making it acceptable to be gay? You want credit for striking down sodomy laws? Do you actually think you were responsible for either of those things?



Short answer, yes. SCOTUS does not make our laws. We, the collective People are who ultimately make the laws. I think most people are like me, when they struck down sodomy laws it was accepted. I don't think it's right to throw people in jail because they're homosexual. That's a far cry from being okay with them destroying the tradition of marriage to legitimize their  sexual behavior. 

So yes... collectively, WE made it acceptable to be gay. The result is, that wasn't enough and I don't think gay marriage will be enough. It's akin to trying to give an alcoholic enough to drink so that he is satisfied. The more you appease and enable, the worse they become. 

I think homosexuals know what they are doing is fundamentally and morally wrong and no matter what measures are taken to accommodate them, it will never overcome that guilt. It's never going to be enough to make the homosexual feel society isn't prejudiced against them. 

Well, guess what? NO ONE is 100% insulated from prejudice! At some point, this has to be accepted and lived with because you're not ever going to change it. Everyone is never going to approve of you completely. There will always be some who don't like you, have prejudice against you, don't agree with your lifestyle, don't want to change their lifestyle to accommodate you. That's just LIFE. Deal with it!


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> I know people who are gay and opposed to gay marriage... So do you also consider them "anti-gay"?



No you don't. 

If such a unicorn existed, yes, they'd be self loathing gays.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court.....you know, the court which you are railing against for striking down laws banning same sex marriage?
> ...



Well if you are talking about the collective we, who exactly would be giving credit?  Are you looking for gays to stand up and say, "Thanks for not treating us quite as much like second class citizens anymore"?  This even though we've already established that some of the things were made acceptable through court decision, such as the striking down of sodomy laws a mere 12 years ago?

Of course no one is insulated from prejudice.  That doesn't mean all prejudice should be accepted.  And it certainly is not up to you what is an appropriate level of acceptance.

You have compared homosexuals to alcoholics, pedophiles, bestiality, and necrophilia.  You started a thread about how it would be easier for society to reject gays.  You are looking for credit for gays being granted equality in various ways.  You think gays 'know what they are doing is fundamentally and morally wrong'.  Is this your idea of being such a tolerant person?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Far from being called 'every name under the book' you have been called a homophobe for starting an anti-gay thread.
> ...



But you didn't start a thread that said gay marriage is wrong.  You started a thread saying it would be easier for society to condemn homosexuality, that perhaps homosexuality is wrong, a theme you've continued.  Yet here you are trying to go back and make this just about same sex marriage.

And you have the gall to say Syriusly is being dishonest?


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You started a thread about how it would be easier for society to reject gays.



Do you not understand the difference between present and past tense? 

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality. 

Lying dipshit!


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You have compared homosexuals to alcoholics, pedophiles, bestiality, and necrophilia.



No, I did not compare them to anything. I've given examples of some other sexual proclivities (and that's what homosexuality is) which can now lobby for their rights, come out of the closet, demand that they be given the same legitimacy under the law... and we have no choice but to allow it, if we are going to remain true to the Constitution. 

I compared the gay lobby to alcoholics being given more to drink in hopes of satisfying them. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. 

Again... you'r being a lying PUNK!


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You started a thread about how it would be easier for society to reject gays.
> ...



Let's look at your OP :


Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> *I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.* Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...



I put a few examples of present or future tense from your OP in bold.  The first one is particularly funny as it says exactly the opposite of what you just claimed.

Who is the 'lying dipshit'?


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2015)

I stand by my OP and you are missing the context.  
Good job on nit picking the grammar though. 

You're still a dishonest dipshit.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You have compared homosexuals to alcoholics, pedophiles, bestiality, and necrophilia.
> ...



You have compared, whether you are comfortable admitting it or not.  I didn't say that you equated homosexuality to those other things, but that you compared it to them.  You did.

As to your claim that you compared the 'gay lobby' to alcoholics, let's quote the post that came from, shall we?



Boss said:


> Short answer, yes. SCOTUS does not make our laws. We, the collective People are who ultimately make the laws. I think most people are like me, when they struck down sodomy laws it was accepted. I don't think it's right to throw people in jail because they're homosexual. That's a far cry from being okay with them destroying the tradition of marriage to legitimize their  sexual behavior.
> 
> *So yes... collectively, WE made it acceptable to be gay. The result is, that wasn't enough and I don't think gay marriage will be enough. It's akin to trying to give an alcoholic enough to drink so that he is satisfied. The more you appease and enable, the worse they become. *
> 
> ...



I've taken the liberty of once again putting the relevant section in bold.  Care to show where you said anything about the gay lobby rather than just gays as a whole?

Again...who's being a lying PUNK!


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> I stand by my OP and you are missing the context.
> Good job on nit picking the grammar though.
> 
> You're still a dishonest dipshit.



Ha!  You get your panties in a wad about the tense of your statements in the OP and tell me I am lying.  I show you that you are completely in the wrong and suddenly I am 'nit picking the grammar'?

You haven't been 'called every name in the book' in this thread, but wow, do you invite it!  You dishonest, whiney, paranoid, arrogant nitwit.


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2015)

You finished yet? If so, we're done here. I've got nothing else to say. I stand by the OP which you are free to disagree with. I'm not going to sit here and reply to every attempt you make to deconstruct the OP and parse out bits and pieces to imply things that weren't said.


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.

The reality is that the bigoted right who fought, and lost, their battle to keep same-sex marriage illegal are the only ones promoting the slippery slope notion that same-sex mariage would lead to those other forms of marriage. And y'all did so with the hope that if you could lump gays in with other more distateful and illegal sex acts, as you just tried to do in your last post, you could get society on your side of the debate.

You lost that debate because society is not as stupid as you.


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior?  I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?
> ...


Cries the poster who shared his vision of gays being beheaded by his ISIS conservative bretheren.


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why is it so important for you to get beastiality legalized. The only ones here I see fighting that argument are folks on your side of the aisle.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia.
> ...


I find it rather difficult to believe you when you claim some of your dearest friends are gay given how you find homosexuality to be "similar" to beastiality and pedophilia.

Are some of your "dearest friends" underaged sheep?


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Deviant or not, our society still supports it. Most people support same-sex marriage, most people support the Supreme Court ruling, and same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states before that ruling.


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes examples of gay Americans who can now legally marry.
> ...


Of course they do. Just how fucking retarded are you??


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Far from being called 'every name under the book' you have been called a homophobe for starting an anti-gay thread.
> ...


Suuuuure ... your message isn't anti-gay ....

_"We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU..."_​


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> You finished yet? If so, we're done here. I've got nothing else to say. I stand by the OP which you are free to disagree with. I'm not going to sit here and reply to every attempt you make to deconstruct the OP and parse out bits and pieces to imply things that weren't said.



Imply things that weren't said, is it?  When I quoted exactly what you posted and later claimed you said the opposite of?

Of course you're done.  You know you were completely wrong but are unwilling to admit it.  Have fun trying to pretend that my pointing out your erroneous claim is parsing out bits and pieces.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You have compared homosexuals to alcoholics, pedophiles, bestiality, and necrophilia.
> ...



If basing marriage on a sexual proclivity means that all other forms of sexual proclivity must be allowed, how is it any different for homosexuality than heterosexuality?  Or are you trying to say that homosexuality is a sexual proclivity but heterosexuality is not?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You finished yet? If so, we're done here. I've got nothing else to say. I stand by the OP which you are free to disagree with. I'm not going to sit here and reply to every attempt you make to deconstruct the OP and parse out bits and pieces to imply things that weren't said.
> ...



Yeah, Boss is one of those posters that can't admit when he's wrong. If you ever want a giggle, look at the thread where Boss insisted that Lincoln campaigned on abolition during his presidential run. 

He couldn't cite a single instance of any such campaigning. But still lacked the integrity to admit he was wrong. It doesn't seem anything has changed.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Sep 19, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


When the victim became the bully.  The line between the two is frightfully thin.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Sep 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Since you're speaking in vague terms, I have no idea what you're talking about. Prostitution is still illegal and if I remember right, you people danced a jig when an Idaho senator was caught in an airport restroom sex sting. So what cases are you referring to that were "thrown out"?


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.



Currently, polygamists are filing cases demanding their equal protection. "Multi-partner marriage" becomes the new "same-sex marriage" complete with same arguments and points. When that is done, here come those who have incest relationships... incest marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" ...Next on deck, the hebephiles.. it becomes the new homosexuality, child marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" complete with same arguments and points. Next... zoophiles... animal marriage becomes the new "same-sex marriage" ...same arguments, same points. In 20 years, you will not be able to stand in the way of marriage for the person and the pig they love, the child they love, the sister they love or the multiple partners they love. You will not be able to deny their Constitutional rights. 

The compelling argument did not exist until the SCOTUS found a right to same sex marriage. That's very recent, that's why these other things have not been made legal. Remember, just 12 years ago, homosexuality was also illegal in some states. It doesn't take long for the house of cards to fall. ALL of them will fall.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
> ...



Again, why is this change to marriage going to lead to all possible forms of marriage becoming legal when other changes to marriage did not?

Also, the arguments for polygamy must be different than same sex marriage because there are no legal polygamous relationships while there were legal 2 member marriages before the Obergefell ruling.

As has been brought up again and again, your other examples don't work because of consent.  Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.  You keep saying you understand consent and then ignoring it to try to demonize same sex marriage.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
> ...


People have been filing such cases for decades to no avail. The underlying acts remain illegal leading to a compelling reason to not allow those types of marriages. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment is not being violated in those cases. No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally to everyone. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally to everyone. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally to everyone. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally to everyone.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Again, why is this change to marriage going to lead to all possible forms of marriage becoming legal when other changes to marriage did not?



Because other changes to marriage were not taken to SCOTUS where it was ruled that marriage was a Constitutional right that can't be denied on the basis of sexuality.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.



Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.



And no one was allowed to marry the same gender... the law was applied equally. 

Your point again?


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.
> ...


Could you please demonstrate the actual harm of same sex marriage?

Are there tangible dangers brought by marriage equality?


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Again, why is this change to marriage going to lead to all possible forms of marriage becoming legal when other changes to marriage did not?
> ...


Legally, marriage has been affirmed as a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness.  Until this past June, that right was denied to gays despite there being no compelling reason as their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection were being denied.

Whereas the 14th Amendment's equal protection is not being violated for the other groups you mention. Everyone is treated the same. No one can marry more than one person. No one can marry a pig. No one can marry a child. No one can marry their sister.

Your problem is that you're fucked in the head. To you, being gay is "similar" to wanting to fuck a pig .... or your sister .... or a 4 year old. That's why you're incapable of understanding why none of those will become allowed forms of marriage even though gay marriages did. Lucid people get this.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.
> ...


No, the law was not applied equally. Employing your twisted logic demands that blacks should not be legally allowed to marry whites as no blacks were allowed to. 

The law allowed only straight folks access to marry the person they love. Gays were denied that right. So no, the law was not being applied evenly. This was clearly explained in Obergefell. It's a pity its above your comprehension.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.
> ...



Women were allowed to marry men.  Men were denied that right based on their gender.  Men were allowed to marry women.  Women were denied that right based on their gender.  

I understand the argument that the law was already applied equally.  I understand disagreeing with the court's decision.  Hell, as a 5-4 decision, the court itself was obviously split.  However, none of that means that other types of marriage are automatically allowed.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.
> ...



But changing marriage does not change consent laws.  You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal.  That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Again, why is this change to marriage going to lead to all possible forms of marriage becoming legal when other changes to marriage did not?
> ...


No, you flaming moron. Legally, it had nothing to do with sexuality. It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I didn't say all other kinds of marriage are automatically allowed. Did I?


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with. 

This has nothing to do with consent laws.. incidentally, the very same consent laws which once made homosexuality illegal. Those can be changed very easily and they already vary from state to state.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.



I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.



No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.
> ...


You're fucking deranged.  What have I said that would lead a nut like you to _think_ I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really _think _ you can transfer project your short comining onto others?


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.
> ...


It's not about sex. I can't help you're too retarded to understand that. 

You've more than demonstrated you have no fucking clue why marrying someone of the dame gender can no longer be banned.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused. 

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act. 

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> It's not about sex. I can't help you're too retarded to understand that.



Yes, it is about sex. In particular, homosexuality, and legitimizing it through marriage.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Like I said... you're fucking deranged.  

I'm explaining why they're not allowed ... *you're the one wondering why they're not... *

_"What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children? The ancient Greeks did this routinely. Even in the US, up until very recently, you could marry as young as 14 in some states. In Appalachian communities, girls were married sometimes at the age of 12. Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals? We can't discriminate, can we?  *Why should they be denied the same rights as you?*_​


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about sex. I can't help you're too retarded to understand that.
> ...


You remain fucking clueless. It's about equality. You can't deny anyone their fundamental right to marry the person they love based on gender. Not based on sex.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I asked and no one ever gave a sufficient answer... just that it's not currently legal. I am not wondering why, I know why, you don't seem to know. The reason is very simple. Up until the recent SCOTUS ruling, you didn't have the right to not be discriminated against based on your sexuality. We have many laws which discriminate based on your sexual behavior. These will now begin to be challenged. It hasn't happened yet, it's coming soon. As soon as those laws start to fall, those people will push for their right to legitimize their relationships through marriage just as homosexuals did. They will use your very SAME arguments.


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> You remain fucking clueless. It's about equality. You can't deny anyone their fundamental right to marry the person they love based on gender. Not based on sex.



They weren't being denied the right to marry! All across America, in all 50 states... homosexual males could marry homosexual females... lesbians could marry straight males... straight females could marry gay men... bisexual men could marry lesbians... transgender men could marry lesbians... straight women could marry transgender men...  no one in America was being denied the right to MARRY!


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> It's about equality.



You're right... NOW it is!  It's about sexuality being equal under the law. And the sexuality you find offensive or unacceptable has equal rights to the same laws. That's the part you are failing to realize because you're either a moron who doesn't comprehend "equal protection" or you're living in a hypocritical world of denial.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, we have laws regarding sexual behavior.  Why do you assume that a)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be challenged and b)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be struck?  That is the problem with your arguments.

You are, again, comparing homosexuality to various illegal acts.  You also have not explained how, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity and because of that, marriage can now be defined by sexual proclivities, having marriage limited to heterosexuals does not do the same thing, since heterosexuality would also be a sexual proclivity.

You can argue that the state has no compelling interest in preventing bestiality or pedophiles or any other non-consensual relationships.  I'm pretty damned certain that the courts will disagree.  The fact that same sex marriage is now legal, or that homosexuality is itself is legal, in no way changes the arguments against non-consensual relationships.  One need not be religious to see the potential harm in a sexual relationship with someone unable to consent to that relationship.

Oh, and pedophiles and zoophiles actually can get married.  They just cannot marry a person or animal which is unable to legally enter into a marriage contract, which includes anything unable to give legal consent.  In order to jump to bans on those sorts of marriages being ruled unconstitutional, not only would the age of consent to enter into the relationships need to change, so would the very nature of contract law.

Yes, homosexual acts are only 12 years removed from being illegal in some places.  However, that was consensual homosexual acts.  The ruling against sodomy laws had no effect on age of consent laws.  Why would same sex marriage laws do so?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It's about equality.
> ...



You are the one who seems to have trouble with equal protection and the way the courts handle it.  I'm not sure how you can worry about pedophilia becoming legal under equal protection and claim any real understanding.  "But consent laws can be changed!"  That's true, but the fact that same sex marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional was in no way based on and has no effect on consent laws.  If those laws are changed, then you can argue equal access and equal protection.  It is only your own paranoia that assumes they will be.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Consent laws made homosexuality illegal?  Really?  I'd like to see the relevant statutes which said that sodomy was a crime because one or both parties were unable to consent to sexual relations.

Once more, you seem to have an issue with consent.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This is what you said :


Boss said:


> No, I did not compare them to anything. I've given examples of some other sexual proclivities (and that's what homosexuality is) which can now lobby for their rights, come out of the closet, demand that they be given the same legitimacy under the law... and we have no choice but to allow it, if we are going to remain true to the Constitution.
> 
> I compared the gay lobby to alcoholics being given more to drink in hopes of satisfying them. That has nothing to do with homosexuality.
> 
> Again... you'r being a lying PUNK!



That certainly seems to be you saying that, if we remain true to the constitution, all other types of marriage, if they can be said to be based on a sexual proclivity, must be allowed.

You're right, that's not necessarily all other kinds of marriage.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Sep 20, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The easier solution is to allow churches to define who they will and will not marry. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they do not have to
> 
> What they can't do is force their religious opinions about marriage on the government


As soon as the GLBT club decides they want churches to perform their weddings, you will change your your mind and not acknowledge what you said here.


----------



## aaronleland (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy...



Fag.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Sep 20, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


Until the day gay enablers like you willingly consent to being butt fucked by a gay man, assuming you're straight, homosexuals will not enjoy public acceptance of their lifestyle.  There will always be a yuck factor separating us.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 20, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The easier solution is to allow churches to define who they will and will not marry. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they do not have to
> ...


Because they've already forced churches to marry interracial couples and interfaith couples, and atheist couples and previously divorced couples.......right?


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. You were wondering why they're not allowed. I even quoted you asking why they're not allowed and now you deny it. 

As far as your idiotic claim that no one gave you a sufficient answer, again... you only think that because you're fucking deranged.  Of course you were given a sufficient answer. It's not that you weren't given one -- it's that you're not capable of understanding the answer you were given. Hell, you still think marriage laws were based on sexuality. They weren't before the Supreme Court ruling and they're not now. If marriage laws were based on sexuality, gay men would not have been allowed to marry women back then. Lesbians would not have been allowed to marry men. The laws were based on *gender*, ya dumbfucking conservative, not sexuality.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You remain fucking clueless. It's about equality. You can't deny anyone their fundamental right to marry the person they love based on gender. Not based on sex.
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

This is why you remain so confused by the Supreme Court ruling. You simply don't understand any of this. You don't understand marriage is a right. You don't understand the primary purpose of marriage. You don't understand how gays were denied equal protection. You don't understand homosexuality is not the same as beastiality or pedophilia or incest.

This is all above your paygrade. That's why after hundreds of posts, you're still posting evidence that you simply don't understand.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It's about equality.
> ...


You're hopeless.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course there will be. So what?


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


*Yes, we have laws regarding sexual behavior.  Why do you assume that a)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be challenged and b)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be struck?  That is the problem with your arguments.*

How many times do I need to walk you through this? How did homosexuality become legal? People challenged "compelling state interest" and won. I asked you earlier to explain a compelling state interest for making zoophilia illegal and you hem-hawed around without really presenting a valid reason. Some bullshit about "to maintain the integrity" ...sounded like something a "bigot" would say about same-sex marriage. You had NO compelling reason. Same is true of hebephilia and polygamy... and even incest, if the parties are not able to have children. 

*You are, again, comparing homosexuality to various illegal acts.  You also have not explained how, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity and because of that, marriage can now be defined by sexual proclivities, having marriage limited to heterosexuals does not do the same thing, since heterosexuality would also be a sexual proclivity.*

No, I compare homosexuality with other sexual behaviors because that is what it is. Marriage is not limited to heterosexuals. Do I need to hit you in the head with a board to get this point through? Nowhere in any state is there any sort of law restricting marriage to heterosexuals. As far as I am aware, there has never been such a law. Nor has there been a law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying... marriage being, union of man and woman. 

*You can argue that the state has no compelling interest in preventing bestiality or pedophiles or any other non-consensual relationships.  I'm pretty damned certain that the courts will disagree.  The fact that same sex marriage is now legal, or that homosexuality is itself is legal, in no way changes the arguments against non-consensual relationships.  One need not be religious to see the potential harm in a sexual relationship with someone unable to consent to that relationship.*

And yet, you can't present ANY valid compelling state interest without sounding exactly like someone who is opposed to gay marriage. You're merely basing everything on "consent" and "consent" can be changed... easier than marriage to change... in fact, it's already different in each state. In some states, a 14-year-old can consent, in other states, they can't. 

I've already explained and illustrated how you cannot require "consent" from animals... they can't give legal consent. When you take your pet to the vet, he doesn't say... _"Sorry, I can't treat your pet because they can't give their consent!"_  Animals are not required to consent just as they aren't required to obey laws. When a dog bites another person, the dog is not the one who gets sued. You can't defend yourself in court by saying the dog didn't give you consent to chain him up.  The owner of the animal is the one who is responsible for consent for that animal. So you have an adult who consents and he can consent for his beloved pig... you have a de facto 'consensual' relationship. 

Polygamy is probably the easiest example... no compelling state interest and no question of consent between adults. Why is this still illegal in 2015? Who are you to deny someone the right to marry the people they love? ...No reason-- and it's-a-coming! 

*Oh, and pedophiles and zoophiles actually can get married. *
LOL... and so could homosexuals!


----------



## Boss (Sep 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.



Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc. 

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.


----------



## Faun (Sep 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're fucking deranged.
> ...


Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That people challenge compelling state interest in one thing does not mean it will change for all other things, which is the whole basis for your argument.  Unless you can give a good reason why various laws will no longer be found to have a compelling state interest and therefore will change, all you are doing is blowing hot air.

Same sex marriage isn't limited to homosexuals.  So hey, I guess your entire argument about it being based on a sexual proclivity is gone.  

I don't sound exactly like someone opposing gay marriage.  I never, not once, heard a single person say or read the words of a single person saying that homosexuality or same sex marriage were bad because someone involved was unable to consent.  Do I have to go look for psychological papers and studies to show harm done from rape by pedophiles?  Do I need to show the potential harm from disease for a necrophiliac, or point out that the body they might have sex with does not belong to them?  If nothing else, bestiality could be considered animal abuse because, once again, the lack of consent.  In legal terms any sex with an animal could be considered rape (although obviously not the same as rape of a human) and therefore abusive.

You're right that a dog does not get sued.  On the other hand, they do get killed.  You talk about this as though there are no consequences for a dog that does something illegal like biting a person.  Just because animals have different laws that concern them doesn't mean they aren't bound by any laws.  And again, you seem to have a problem with consent.  You realize an animal can't consent but don't seem to get the idea of consent being required for sexual relations.  And yes, there is certainly a moral component to these laws, as with nearly any law.  And yes, it's possible that some day society will have changed enough to allow such things.  Your wild ranting about how same sex marriage means these changes are nigh is ridiculous.

Animals can't consent, nor can they enter into a contract.  They are animals.  Are they going to sign their names?  Give some sort of verbal agreement to a contract?  How will they indicate they understand the terms of a contract?  

Why does it matter if age of consent laws are more easily changed than marriage laws? I don't actually know what makes that true, but whatever, it doesn't matter.  It's been pointed out that age of consent laws have been going up, rather than down, yet you still trot that out as though suddenly the country is going to decide that 6 year olds can consent to sex.  The ease with which consent laws can change is not related to same sex marriage at all.  Why do you keep repeating that meaningless tripe that consent laws are easier to change?

I have no moral problems with polygamy.  The only issues I see are in the details; current marriage law would not work for a polygamous relationship.  If people work out the details and all are willing adults, feel free to have a polygamous marriage as far as I'm concerned.

Why don't you compare homosexuality to some more illegal, non-consensual sex acts, tell us that consent laws can change as though that means anything, give a few more lines about how homosexuals know they are wrong, then let us know how tolerant you are again?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're fucking deranged.
> ...



If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.  So, not being about sexual proclivities, your argument is bunk.  

Can you point to the part of Obergefell in which the USSC ruled that marriage is based on a sexual proclivity?


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



LMAOoo.. typical clueless lib response. You don't have an answer so you pretend it has been explained when it hasn't. Your only reasoning for why the other things mentioned can't be made legal or legitimized through marriage is because you don't think they can or you don't think people would approve of such things. Your strongest evidence to support your argument is that these things haven't been legalized yet. That, and the consent laws which change all the time. 

No... I am NOT deranged... you're going to probably live long enough to witness "deranged" and see it codified into law and legitimized through marriage. Once the moral constraints are removed, it all happens very quickly.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Do I have to go look for psychological papers and studies to show harm done from rape by pedophiles? Do I need to show the potential harm from disease for a necrophiliac, or point out that the body they might have sex with does not belong to them? If nothing else, bestiality could be considered animal abuse because, once again, the lack of consent. In legal terms any sex with an animal could be considered rape (although obviously not the same as rape of a human) and therefore abusive.



You could do those things if you wanted to sound exactly like opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality. There are STDs exclusively prevalent in homosexuals as the result of anal sex. Fecal bacteria causes death and you are at risk every time you engage in anal sex. Sodomy laws were exclusively based on absence of consent... you can't consent to be sodomized any more than you can consent to be raped.... or, so was the legal argument. Sodomy, for all intents and purposes, was considered no different than rape. Incest is currently in that category. Does it belong there or are these delineations we've constructed out of moral righteousness? When it comes to animal sex, what about the female who is mounted by her German Shepherd? The dog obviously doesn't object.. it's instinctual for them. 

Yes indeed... LOTS of things "could be considered" back when we had no Constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior... that has now changed. That's my point.


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




That's not even what I said.

How on Earth are you going to convince anyone you're not deranged when you can't even understand what people are saying?

I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.

And yes, that has been explained to you even though you now deny it.

Again, you don't possess even the minimal required acumen to understand this argument. That's why you persist with this idiocy of yours. Likr your moronic belief thay homosexuality is similar to beastiality, pedophilia and incest.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.



Well it doesn't matter now because SCOTUS has ruled that sexuality is a Constitutionally-protected right under the 14th Amendment and marriage has to be redefined in order to accommodate a sexual proclivity. 

Again, there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" it's the same thing as saying "same sex procreation" or "same sex intercourse" ...those words have specific meaning and you've altered the meaning to include behavior that doesn't fit the criteria. 

When you take a shit, you're NOT "having a baby!"  Perhaps you are constipated and it's a really big turd and you feel like you're having a baby... you still can't call it "having a baby" it doesn't matter how it feels to you. If you try to claim the turd as a dependent on your tax returns, that isn't allowed because a turd isn't a baby... passing a turd is not having a baby. Sure.. we can change the law... SCOTUS can make some insane and lawless ruling... it's still not going to EVER be "having a baby!"


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.



And neither were the equal protection rights of homosexuals. NO ONE could have a same-sex marriage.. gay, straight or otherwise. ALL were given equal access to marry... Marriage being what it is.. the union of a man and woman. The fact that homosexuals might not be interested in such a relationship doesn't mean they were excluded from the right to do so. 

And let's be clear about something else... Gay people weren't even prohibited from having a wedding and pretending they were married... they just couldn't have it codified by state authority. I attended a gay wedding in Alabama, in 1986! No redneck sheriff was there to stop it, no county clerk waving her bible around to prevent it... it happened.


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.
> ...


No, the SCOTUS didn't.

Sadly, again, your derangement interferes with your abilities to comprehend.


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.
> ...


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That's not a point. That's a delusion.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimate relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown-ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



I don't know what the fuck you're yapping about. I'm not wondering anything. You seem to not understand what our Constitution says about equal protection. The Constitution leaves nothing to wonder. You can wonder, because you're too dumb to know what the Constitution says. So sit there with your finger in your nose looking ignorant, muttering... _duh, dey cantz get marrified cuz its not legalz..derp derp!_


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Suuure, rightard... questioning why those folks are not allowed to marry is not wondering why.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're the one who thinks there is a question. I think the Constitution is clear. There is no question of whether or not you get to discriminate against other groups you don't like. Any "question" you seem to think you're seeing from me is a rhetorical one, asked in order to demonstrate what you can't explain. That's not me wondering, that is you being clueless.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Do I have to go look for psychological papers and studies to show harm done from rape by pedophiles? Do I need to show the potential harm from disease for a necrophiliac, or point out that the body they might have sex with does not belong to them? If nothing else, bestiality could be considered animal abuse because, once again, the lack of consent. In legal terms any sex with an animal could be considered rape (although obviously not the same as rape of a human) and therefore abusive.
> ...



Anal sex is neither exclusive to homosexuals nor practiced by all homosexuals.  As with most anti-gay people, you end up boiling homosexuality down to male anal sex.  Well, I hate to break it to you, but anal sex is practiced by many heterosexuals.

Again, can you show a sodomy law which is based on consent?  You say they were based on consent but haven't shown any.  I am very curious to see the sodomy statutes which say it is illegal because someone cannot consent to have anal or oral sex.  I'm guessing such laws never existed, but please, feel free to prove me wrong.  You might also explain why, if sodomy was based on consent and considered no different than rape, both parties involved in the act would be arrested?  Are rape victims normally arrested and convicted of being raped?  

Incest is considered no different than rape?  By who, exactly?  In some cases incest is rape, in some cases it is statutory rape.  In some cases there can be a gray area; can a child really consent to a relationship with a parent?  Does the dynamic there mean the parent has undo influence and coercion?  In some cases it is consensual.  You continue to post in ways that make it seem you don't really understand the concept of consent.

Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.  You can make that claim as many times as you like, it doesn't make it true.  There were laws regarding sexual contact before Obergefell or Lawrence, there are laws regarding sexual contact after those decisions.  Lawrence was based on privacy, Obergefell on equal access to marriage law.  Lawrence might be said to have enshrined consensual sexual behavior as a matter of privacy, but as with all rights, there are limits.  The big one when it comes to sex is consent.  

You seem to have an amazingly poor grasp of what actually went into the court decisions being discussed as well as the idea of legal consent.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.
> ...



No, the court ruled nothing of the sort.

There is such a thing as same sex marriage.  Marriage has had different definitions through time, it has not been a static thing.  Same sex procreation may not be possible now, but I've actually read that it may be close to possible, at least for two women.  It's been a while since I saw the article, so I can't give you any specifics, but supposedly researchers felt they were close to somehow fertilizing a woman's egg with another woman's DNA.  Maybe manufactured sperm, some sort of viral delivery, I don't know?  Intercourse can include oral or anal sex.

You dislike changing definitions?  That's unfortunate for you.  It does not mean that the things you don't like don't exist.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why?  Why are there only two possible definitions for the word?  What about the fact that marriage has meant different things through history; a man and multiple wives, a white man and white woman or a black man and black woman, a brother and sister, etc.?  Can the definition of marriage change so long as it remains something you are comfortable with?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, Faun, so ignorant....along with, it seems, the justices on the USSC.....but you, Boss, you are clearly the authority on the constitution.  


Boss said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where has the government decided what you are allowed to call marriage?  Call anything you want marriage.  Who's stopping you?

Yes, we could call legal marriage something else, like civil unions.  I'm all for that, I totally agree with you there.  However, I also believe there is no chance of that happening any time soon.  That's not because of gays or same sex marriage.  It's because the idea of marriage as a legal institution is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.  It would take at least a generation or two of people pushing for all marriage to change, and the idea getting traction, before I think it could realistically happen.  But yes, like you, I'd be happier if the government would just get out of the marriage business, even if just by changing the name.  It would shut the whole 'marriage has to mean a man and woman' argument down, at least.

I don't know what the legal arguments regarding incest are, but I can guess.  First, of course, is the possible danger from inbreeding.  That shouldn't be an issue for infertile couples, but it may be that the law simply made a blanket rule and didn't allow exceptions.  Beyond that is the question of positions of power, undue influence, things like that.  A family member can have a relationship which makes it questionable whether both members of a relationship can truly consent.  This is particularly true when it comes to parents and children, but that may extend to siblings as well.  And it's possible rules regarding incest could change.  Those rules are not changed because of either Lawrence or Obergefell, though.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why is it important to you that 'deviancy' be illegal? 

Lots of people are 'deviant'- Judaism, Mormonism, left handed people, red haired people, people who enjoy opera.

I am curious as to what political persuasion believes society should criminalize people who are 'deviant'? Or who do things that you don't agree with- but that don't affect you? 

Would you call yourself Conservative- or Liberal?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And when did that happen?


----------



## jillian (Sep 21, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> ...



corrupt? for him to follow the precedent set by Loving v Virginia and do the right thing?

lmao... thanks for your constitutional "expertise".

idiotic  to think he sold his vote. not only is it idiotic but it's defamatory.

loon


----------



## jillian (Sep 21, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



your bigotry is not anyone else's problem.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Really? 

When did consent have anything to do with laws which made homosexuality illegal?

From what I have seen, sodomy laws didn't care about consent.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You were the one who equated homosexuality with rape. 

You are also the one claiming with no basis that consent is 'easier to redefine' than marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.



Yes, it explicitly did.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I didn't *equate* homosexuality with anything. I don't even know how rape got tangled up in this argument... no one thinks rape is a right or should be legal or could be legal. No argument has been made for rape that I am aware of... so why does it keep getting mentioned by you retards? 

I made the point that when the sodomy laws were established, the legal basis for that was the same justifications used for laws against rape... that's not me comparing sodomy to rape or saying it's the same as rape. Obviously, sodomy laws were struck down because it isn't the same thing as rape. 

I don't need a basis... consent is already defined differently in different states. Montronut has already deduced that "consent" can certainly be a "gray area" as he put it. There is no set-in-law definition of consent that I know of. 

You whole entire defense rests on this "consent" argument and "consent" is so unbelievably easy to change it's not even worth me challenging. It happens all the time.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.
> ...



First, sex is not a requirement for marriage.  Second, the Obergefell ruling was about equal access to marriage contract law, not about sexual behavior.

You disagree?  Please show us which part of the ruling explicitly created this constitutional obligation.  

I might understand your argument if you were talking about the Lawrence decision, which at least was about laws based on sexual behavior.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You still have yet to give a single example of a sodomy law which is based on, or even mentions, consent.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I brought up rape in regards to why there is a compelling state interest to prevent pedophilia.  That may have been where it began in this thread.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Sep 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


When they started attacking anyone who didn't want to cater their fag weddings.


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're a fucking retard.

What question do your delusions inform you I asked in terms of marriages involving animals, young children, immediate family members, and polygamy.

And no paraphrasing -- quote me verbatim.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior.
> ...



I don't think explicitly means what you think it means. Show us the 'explicit' creation of a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the indivduals sexual behavior.

Remembering, of course, that explicitly has an explicit meaning. And isn't whatever you want to make up.


----------



## Faun (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


How on Earth do you ever hope to understand what others say when you can't even understand what you say. 

The hell you didn't equate homosexuality with rape...

_"Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other  *similar groups*. Who decided that it is more okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals,  *the same morals* that opposed homosexual marriage." - Boss_​
... to you and apes like you, there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophilia or zoophilia.

Oh, and did I mention ... ? You're fucking deranged.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 21, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



So Keith Bardwell was 'bullied' by Jindal when pressured by Jindal to resign after Bardwell wouldn't issue marriage licenses to interracial couples?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.
> ...



The Supreme Court ruled that private consensual activity was a protected right over 10 years ago. Do you disagree with them- or do you believe that the government should be deciding what kind of sex you can have with another adult?

Marriage has not been redefined to accomodate any sexual proclivity- that is entirely your imagination- based upon your own bias.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.
> ...



There is just marriage- between two people- regardless of the gender of their spouse.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.
> ...



Well that is your opinion.

Multiple courts- and ultimately the Supreme Court disagreed with you. 

You just happen to be wrong.  Again.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.
> ...



And no one is stopping your from saying you are the Emperor of China.

But gay couples were not allowed to legally marry in the United States. 

And anything other than legal marriage can be anything from your two dogs hanging out together to the marriage of your truck and your trailer.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you think that anything other than a woman is the same thing as man?

Why do you think goats are the same thing as men?


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It had to be about sexual behavior, otherwise there is no need to change marriage contract law. Sex isn't a requirement for marriage, it is the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Changing what it IS to something it ISN'T is explicitly being done to accommodate sexual behavior of homosexuals who want to "pretend" they are married couples. 

I'm sorry... are you expecting me to go find something from the Obergefell ruling that says... hey, this is really about accommodating homosexuals but we're not going to call it that? Or maybe... hey, we know we don't have any business legislating this from the bench, but we're gonna do it anyway?   ...And of course, when I can't produce such "evidence" from the archives, you proclaim yourself victorious in this debate? Is that what you think is happening in your reality? 

This is getting to be like the abortion threads... we argue for 3 weeks about whether abortion is right or wrong... until someone proclaims victory on the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision! This is not an argument about what the SCOTUS has ruled... that is a matter of public record and isn't debatable. Only a moron would debate that the court didn't make their ruling. We were supposed to be having a philosophical discussion about the ramifications of the ruling, what happens next, what the Constitution says... but you want to run to your safe haven of what SCOTUS has ruled.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



They're not pretending. Their marriages are as legally valid as any you can enter into. There's just marriage. The genders of the participants are irrelevant.

You disagree. And you're welcome to your opinion. But your opinion has nothing to do with our laws or marriage in our society.



> I'm sorry... are you expecting me to go find something from the Obergefell ruling that says... hey, this is really about accommodating homosexuals but we're not going to call it that?



The Obergefell ruling was about treating gay couples and lesbian couples the same as everyone else. 



> Or maybe... hey, we know we don't have any business legislating this from the bench, but we're gonna do it anyway?   ...And of course, when I can't produce such "evidence" from the archives, you proclaim yourself victorious in this debate? Is that what you think is happening in your reality?



They're not 'legislating from the bench'. They answered 2 specific legal questioned posed to them:

Can the state deny marriage licenses to same sex couples and can the state refuse to recognize marriges performed in other states for same sex couples?

The answer to both was 'no'.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Far from being called 'every name under the book' you have been called a homophobe for starting an anti-gay thread.
> ...



This is not an anti-gay marriage thread- this is an anti-gay thread- this is you stomping your feet over your imagined slights from homosexuals, despite your self proclaimed 'tolerance' 

I have seen nothing reasonable about you in this thread- you started it as a rant- and your posts have been your imagined interpretations of the Supreme Court decisions.

You don't want to be called a homophobe- don't start a thread attacking homosexuals.

If you start a thread attacking homosexuals- then have the stones to take the response like a man.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court.....you know, the court which you are railing against for striking down laws banning same sex marriage?
> ...



I have been married for over 20 years.

My marriage has not been harmed because same gender couples can marry. 

Why do you imagine that the 'tradition' of marriage is somehow destroyed?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court.....you know, the court which you are railing against for striking down laws banning same sex marriage?
> ...



No- 'we' meaning you didn't. 

You still don't find homosexuality acceptable. You tolerate homosexuals- supposedly- while attacking homosexuality in this very thread. 

What this whole thread about is you making a feeble argument why homosexuals should be forced back into the closet.

Not going to happen- the  real we- the Americans who really are tolerant- don't think that anyone should be forced into the closet.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You have compared homosexuals to alcoholics, pedophiles, bestiality, and necrophilia.
> ...



No- you didn't compare 'the gay lobby'- you compared homosexuals- lets us review again

*So yes... collectively, WE made it acceptable to be gay. The result is, that wasn't enough and I don't think gay marriage will be enough. It's akin to trying to give an alcoholic enough to drink so that he is satisfied. The more you appease and enable, the worse they become. 

I think homosexuals know what they are doing is fundamentally and morally wrong and no matter what measures are taken to accommodate them, it will never overcome that guilt. It's never going to be enough to make the homosexual feel society isn't prejudiced against them*

No mention of 'gay lobby'- however you do specifically refer to homosexuals. You compared homosexuals to alcoholics- you compared allowing gay marriage to giving an alcoholic a drink. 

And that says more about you- than it does about any homosexuals. _
_


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Skylar said:


> The Obergefell ruling was about treating gay couples and lesbian couples the same as everyone else.



Funny... Montronut just said that it wasn't about sexuality.  Make up your minds!! 

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it is nothing else. Same-sex relationships are not marriage. It doesn't mean they can't have the same benefits. It doesn't mean they can't dress up and have a wedding and throw rice and eat wedding cake and go on honeymoons... they can do all that. And now, they can even get their license from the government because the SCOTUS has ruled your Constitutional rights to sexuality are protected under the law and can be legitimized through marriage. It was a lawless ruling they shouldn't have made and it will have severe ramifications. But SCOTUS has gotten it wrong so many times it's not really a surprise they got it wrong again. 

The entire point of my OP is the fact that "gay marriage" or any other accommodation is not going to make homosexuals whole. If you are gay, you may as well get used to the fact that society will always treat you differently because you are different. There will always be religious people who look at what you do as an abomination and morally wrong, and The Bible is never going to rewrite itself or be overturned by SCOTUS. So we can keep on changing definition of traditional things to appease homosexuals and never succeed in satisfying them because we'll never have the society they want, where homosexuality is normal and accepted... or we can grow up and understand that people are different and we should judge people on individual character instead of a stereotype.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> I stand by my OP and you are missing the context.
> Good job on nit picking the grammar though.
> 
> You're still a dishonest dipshit.



You stand by your OP- which is an attack on homosexuals- and a call for Americans to reject homosexuals and equality for homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



that is what you insist it must be.

The ruling says nothing of the sort. 

Which is why you can't find a quote to support your claim.

This is just you being really, really upset that same gender couples can marry.

This is a reality now- unless you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to change that- the reality is that people in America are getting married- regardless of the gender of their spouse. 

You don't have to like it- you don't have approve of it- but it is the reality.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > The Obergefell ruling was about treating gay couples and lesbian couples the same as everyone else.
> ...



that is your opinion.

Nothing else.

Marriage has been legal for same gender couples in Massachusetts for 11 years now.  Yet straight people still get married in Massachusetts.


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I have been married for over 20 years.
> 
> My marriage has not been harmed because same gender couples can marry.



*GOOD!* And this will also be the case when the hebephiles lobby for pre-teen-marriage and the zoophiles lobby for animal marriage... and the polygamists and pederasts... sibling marriage... father-daughter and son-mother marriage...  None of what is coming will harm your marriage in any way... so you'll be totally cool with all that when it's rolled out.  ...Good for you!


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > The Obergefell ruling was about treating gay couples and lesbian couples the same as everyone else.
> ...



Nothing in your OP says that. 

Your OP is a rant to Americans on why it would have been better to condemn homosexuals than to treat them equally. 

There will always be people who find some people- and somethings- morally wrong- at one time Divorce was considered one of those things- so was selling liquor- other times it was dancing- other times it was failure to attend church on Sunday.

Why should we ever be trying to appease those of you who find something offensive?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I have been married for over 20 years.
> ...



Oh you were just watiing to drag out your favorite strawmen weren't you?

And once again- I will point out- why is it homophobes like yourself do not understand- or care- about consent?

You have done this repeatedly in this thread- you have repeatedly compared gay marriage to child rape.

Why do you see no difference between two adults consenting to get married- and a man raping a 4 year old girl?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > The Obergefell ruling was about treating gay couples and lesbian couples the same as everyone else.
> ...



Its about equal treatment under the law. And equal treatment includes gays and lesbians.



> Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it is nothing else.



That's certainly an opinion. It has no relevance to our law or how our society recognizes marriage. But you're welcome to your beliefs. 

See, your entire argument is predicated on us accepting your personal opinion as legally valid. And your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Clearly Google is a challenge for you.

Type in Louisiana arrests sodomy and you will find your answers for unconstitutional arrests. 

Type in Lawrence v. Texas for why the arrests are unconstitutional.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.
> ...



Anyone- yourself included- can file a case demanding equal protection. You could file a lawsuit arguing for your right to marry your ewe- but it doesn't mean there is merit to the case. 

The slippery slope argument- the ultimate refuge of all the homophobes. 

What all of your claims really show is that you have never read Obergefell.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a decade. If legalized gay marriage leads to legalized pig marriage......then why didn't it? 

Meh...Boss isn't one to let a perfect record of historical contradiction and an absolute lack of evidence to support his argument get in the way of a good rant.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.
> ...



Ah I see the problem here.

You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex. 

Marriage is whatever we decide marriage is. In some cultures marriage is the union of a man and one or more women. In historical terms marriage has at times been limited by race or by religion or by class.

Women have been able to be sold into marriage- and were at times able to be sold from one 'marriage' to another.

Marriage is not the equal partnership between two persons who can give legal consent to their partnership- or as the Supreme Court put it so well once:


_"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."_


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It's about equality.
> ...



Actually that is correct.

Whether or not you find homosexuality offensive or unacceptable is irrelevant to the law- Americans have a right to private consensual sexual behavior.

Notice the word 'consensual'

Seems to be a word that gives a lot of Conservatives real difficulty.

For a short example of consent in action.

Renee and Pat meet each other- they are both 30 years old and legally capable of making their own decisions- and they return  to Renee's apartment with the intention of having sex with each other and do- that is consensual- regardless of the gender of either party.

Pat rapes a 4 year old girl- that is not consensual. That is always wrong. 

Consent versus non-consent.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You say same sex marriage created a constitutional obligation, then complain when I talk about the Supreme Court ruling?  Really?  

You say something explicitly happened based on a USSC ruling then get upset when asked to show how the ruling did what you claim?

You are going to say that a USSC ruling has nothing to do with what the constitution says?

So you make a claim, I ask for evidence of that claim, and suddenly there is no evidence needed, this is just a 'philosophical discussion' and evidence plays no part?



Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior?  Because you say so?  If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior?  Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior?  Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 21, 2015)

jillian said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


But someones sexual preference is everyone else's? Lopsided logic, typical for libtards.


----------



## jillian (Sep 21, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



someone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex?

surely even you can understand the difference.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

jillian said:


> someone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex?



Someone is forcing you to marry your pig? Someone is forcing you to marry a 12-year-old? Someone is forcing you to marry your brother?  See where this argument fails?


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......



Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it. 

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all *pretend* this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature. 

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis... 
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing. 
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry. 
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer. 
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love! 

It's ALL coming soon!


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

Men and women who married weren't sexual before Obergefell??


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?



I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I don't know whether they were or not, I'm not in everyone's bedroom. MARRIAGE was the matrimonial union of a man and woman of legal age. It did not exclude gay people or any other sexual proclivity. But Holyfuckingshit... NOW, marriage is something that can be used to legitimize almost any sexual behavior because the SCOTUS has pretty much made that case in their ruling.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Notice the word 'consensual'
> 
> Seems to be a word that gives a lot of Conservatives real difficulty.



Not as much as "marriage" seems to give Liberals!

I will state it again... Consent laws can be changed EASIER than marriage! In fact, consent laws in the US are different already from state to state. No reason these can't be changed the same as marriage was changed, either by law or by SCOTUS decree upon high.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why am I still waiting for you to quote me questioning why those other forms of marriage are illegal??

You've now made that false claim twice. Either you prove it or you prove I was spot on when I said you're fucking deranged.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?
> ...


And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Well using your twisted logic, straight men can now marry each other, so it still doesn't delineate sexuality.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Sep 22, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> If I had a brain like yours...I'd be a freaky nutbag too.


IF you had a brain you would lose it up your ass so fast it still wouldn't count.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Ah I see the problem here.
You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.
*
No, you clearly DON'T see the problem here because you're a simple-minded moron. I didn't confuse a damn thing, I gave you two examples of words that mean specific things, which can't mean anything else and can't be changed to include something else. 

I can give you all kinds of examples... Electrical work isn't plumbing. We don't allow plumbers to obtain a license to be an electrician. It isn't because we're discriminating against the plumber. Grand larceny isn't an an occupation... we don't redefine "occupation" to include grand larceny because that's not what IS an occupation... has nothing to do with discrimination. Cats can't compete in the Westminster Dog Show... they are not eligible and don't meet the criteria because they are cats... it's not because they are being discriminated against. If you are a man, you can never BE Miss America.. sorry... not discrimination. 

Rattling off what the SCOTUS said in their lawless ruling is not what is being debated here. I have no argument regarding what they have ruled, it's public record. SCOTUS is not some kind of Supreme Authority we are bound to follow for eternity... they have a long storied history of making some awful decisions... Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Korematsu.. the list goes on and on.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...



Hmm, nice diatribe about gays wanting equal rights.  Do you realize that if gays had all the rights that heterosexuals had and were not discriminated against constantly then they would not need to push for greater rights?  Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe that is what you need with your attitude toward them.  Yours is just another typical rant against gays because you keep losing battle after battle against them.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're the one who equated homosexuality with pedophilia. And despite your lame attempt to weasel out of your ridiculous claim that you did not equate the two, you merely stated they were similar...

*equate*

_to make or regard as equivalent or *similar*, esp in order to compare or balance._​


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, and I explained the context in which they are similar.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> ...



Gays already had equal rights. Nowhere in our country was any law which excluded gay people. 

People discriminate against each other all the time. I'm discriminated against here because I am Conservative. I will most likely discriminate against a liberal democrat when I vote for president. When I look for someone to cut my hair, I will discriminate against men or airhead young girls. Even when you picked your gay lover, I bet you discriminated against someone else. 

This notion that you're ever going to live your gay life in a society that doesn't discriminate against you is quite foolish and impossible for us to create for you. I know that you seek validation and acceptance but you need to comprehend that isn't always going to happen for you. As for "winning battles" this isn't some kind of game or contest.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yet you denied equating them.

Meanwhile, you falsely claimed I questioned why pedophilia, and the other illegal perversions you equated with homosexuality, remained ilkegal.

I offered you ample opporunity to prove that absurd claim and as expected, you failed miserably to quote me since I never asked such a question. You simply lied because you're not man enough to admit it was you who actually questioned why they remain illegal.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe...



No, I haven't heard that either... but when "gay marriage" doesn't deliver the validation and acceptance you seek, who knows what you'll demand next? You may seek to outlaw "homophobia" by forcing heterosexuals into involuntary participation? 

I just think it's important to get things out in the open and understand that society is never going to be able to appease you. It's a futile effort.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I never said that and I am tired of arguing with you about what I never said. 

Go fuck yourself.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

Gays did not have the same rights as straights to marry the person they love and with whom they wish to establish a life long marital bond. You can keep repeating your idiocy but it will never become true. It's no one else's fault you're too dumb to understand this; but it does go a long way in explaining why you're so perplexed with the Supreme Court ruling.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

* I quoted you saying that * and linked your post where you said it.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Gays had exactly the same rights to go out there and find a person to marry... marriage is the union of a man and woman. They DIDN'T have the right to find a person of the same gender and pretend that is the same as marriage, but heterosexuals didn't have that right either. No one had that right... hebephiles, zoophiles, pederasts or any other group. I am not questioning gays and their love or desire to spend their life with a partner of same gender. I support their right to do that if it's what they want to do. *It's not marriage* and won't ever be thought of as marriage by me or millions of people like me. You cannot force me to believe that.

I am not perplexed by the SCOTUS  ruling. I understand the ramifications where most of you don't seem to think it's any big deal. Thing is, most of you probably won't live long enough to have to deal with the social consequences... when the hebephiles and zoophiles are pushing for their sexual proclivities to be legitimized through marriage, using your same arguments and SCOTUS rulings, citing your own case laws for same-sex marriage, having the legal barriers removed one by one the same way homosexuals did.... you'll be long gone.  If some of you ARE still around, I am sure you will be right there on the front line, defending whatever immorality slaps at the face of Christianity, just as you are today.  There is no limit to how low you will go.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......
> ...



Obergefel did not 'delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general', did it?  Of course the ruling involved accommodating homosexuals.....just as before that, marriage was specifically for heterosexuals.  You say I'm pretending this wasn't about homosexuality, but that's not true.  I know this was about homosexuality.  You, however, don't want to admit that marriage, prior to the Obergefell ruling, was for heterosexuals.  Somehow, when marriage is between a man and a woman, sexuality has no bearing, but if marriage is between a woman and a woman, it's all about sexuality.  That's based entirely on your own opinions, not the court's ruling, so far as I can tell.  You certainly can't seem to provide any pertinent part of the ruling which proves your point, and in fact have gotten upset by being asked for such evidence, on the basis of this being just 'a philosophical discussion'.  

You should get together with Silhouette and see if you can have a combined record of getting every legal prediction based on Obergefell wrong.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriage can't mean anything else or be changed to include anything else?  When did you become the arbiter of all word definitions?  The definition of marriage has already been changed throughout the years, yet suddenly you've decided the definition can't be changed or added to?  Forgive those of us who don't accept your authority to decide what words mean for all time.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?
> ...



You can't even keep your own claims straight.- here are your quotes on pedophilia and marriage.

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._


#199
_All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_#166
[responding to What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not]_
From a Constitutional rights perspective, how can you make one type of sexuality legitimate without making all sexuality legitimate? 

#111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children? 

After repeatedly inferring that allowing homosexuals to marry each other will lead to pedophiles marrying children- now you are saying you don't think it will happen?

Just a straw man you were throwing out there?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



First of all, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity, heterosexuality is a sexual proclivity, and both would be similar to pedophilia in that way.

Second, who are you to discuss what is a reasonable age of consent?  According to you, consent laws can and will be changed at the drop of a hat!  Now, suddenly, you want to argue that a change to age of consent is difficult?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......
> ...



You seem to be confusing being homosexual with sexual acts which are homosexual.

Obergefell said that two persons of the same gender had the same right to marriage as any other couple- and that the laws that were passed to prevent such marriages were intended to discriminate against homosexuals.

Obergefell had nothing to do with sexual behavior at all. 

You can't even manage to come up with anything from Obergefell to support your claims- you just keep saying what Obergefell must have been about. Perhaps you should read the ruling and find out.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......
> ...



That is what the homophobes have been saying since before the decision. 

But what you- and everyone of your fellow travellers just are pointing out is that you don't understand what the Supreme Court said in Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Except of course- the Supreme Court did no such thing. 

You can't even find a single quote from the ruling to support your claims.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Boss seems to have a proclivity for posting something and then denying having done so.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Notice the word 'consensual'
> ...



Tell me how you expect consent to be changed to allow a 40 year old man to have consensual sex with a 4 year old girl?

The changes to marriage laws by the Supreme Court have happened 4 times- in each case the Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional marriage laws- you say that consent can be changed just as easily so that an 11 year old can 'consent' to have sex with a 60 year old man?

Tell me- do you see any philosophical or moral difference between 2 adults of the same gender having consensual sex- and a 40 year old man having 'consensual' sex with a 4 year old girl?

Since you claim 'consent' can so easily be changed.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And Dred Scott gives you your road map if you believe that a ruling is unconstitutional- you can fight for a constitutional amendment so that you can prevent homosexuals from marrying.

You were the one who equated marriage to procreation- if you don't like that pointed out- don't make that comparison.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Here you go again- comparing homosexuals to 'pederasts'.

Wierdly enough- you keep insisting that marriage is the union between a man and a woman-

If that is the case- do you consider the union of a mother and son marriage?

That meets your criteria. 

Your opinion on what marriage should be has been argued through the courts. Your opinion lost- not only in court- but has also lost in the court of public opinion. 

You are entitled to your opinion- but not entitled for your opinion to be free of criticism.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe...
> ...



There is no evidence that homosexuals are like Christians- in that homosexuals will attempt to pass legislation forcing criminalizing Christian behavior.

That of course is what Christians did to homosexuals. Passed laws criminalizing sex between two men or women. Passing laws to fire homosexuals from teaching jobs- because they were homosexuals. 

Frankly, from your posts, it appears that Christianity is not deliverying the validation you are seeking, so you are retaliating against homosexuals.

I don't know whether society will ever be appease Christians- but we sure have been trying for decades. 

And you still have it out for homosexuals.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Let's walk through it slowly again... (keep your hand off my butt) 
Obergefel doesn't have to delineate sexuality of anything for that to be the result or consequences of the ruling itself. Marriage has never been specifically for heterosexuals. Marriage is not about sexuality prior to Obergefel. Nowhere were gays prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex and in fact, many have done so. It is the ruling in Obergefel which suddenly redefines marriage based on accommodating a sexuality. NOW, marriage is about sexuality.... BEFORE, it wasn't. The ruling doesn't have to say that, it's the basis for the ruling and the case itself. 

This is akin to arguing the Dred Scott decision didn't take away the civil rights of black people because the ruling doesn't say a word about taking the civil rights from black people. Or... Korematsu didn't violate the Constitutional rights of Japanese Americans because it doesn't mention their rights! What I am arguing is not going to be in the text of the Obergefel ruling. 

My predictions are not wrong. Unless some subsequent ruling changes things, the precedent is set for marriage to be the right to legitimize your preferred sexuality. It was altered to accommodate homosexuals and it will be used to accommodate others as well. This hasn't happened yet because the ruling just happened. It takes time for a case to make its way up the ladder and be heard by SCOTUS... but rest assured, that day is coming soon. Polygamists are already challenging it and they will win. So will others. You can't stop it.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Wierdly enough- you keep insisting that marriage is the union between a man and a woman-
> 
> If that is the case- do you consider the union of a mother and son marriage?
> 
> That meets your criteria.



Hold on, there are several other criteria besides just being a man and woman... remember consent?  I don't have the right to marry Kate Upton just because she is a woman. Kate and I have to meet a few other criteria... First, she has to consent. Next, she has to not already be married and I have to also not already be married. Next, we both have to be of legal age. Finally, we have to not be immediately related... this can vary from state to state, in some states we could be cousins. But above all else, we have to be a man and woman or what we're doing is not marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Tell me how you expect consent to be changed to allow a 40 year old man to have consensual sex with a 4 year old girl?



I don't think it can be and I didn't argue it could be. As I told you yesterday... go fuck yourself, I am tired of arguing with you about what I DIDN'T say.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Tell me- do you see any philosophical or moral difference between 2 adults of the same gender having consensual sex- and....



Whoa.. When did a constitutional right to marry who you love become about philosophy and morals? It doesn't matter if you find something morally or philosophically wrong NOW... you've changed marriage and what it means. This is where you apparently think you can have your cake and eat it too... you can redefine marriage to include homosexual behavior because you approve of homosexuality.... but you want to deny that same "right" to others and adopt a moral and philosophical high ground which you just destroyed.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You were the one who equated marriage to procreation...



No, I didn't. You're lying again.  I gave "procreation" as an example of a word that has a specific meaning. It cannot BE something it is NOT. If a gay couple wanted to "procreate" and they went to the hospital and stole a baby from the nursery and called that "gay procreation" we couldn't change the definition of "procreation" to include their behavior because that's NOT procreation. Of course... a ROGUE SCOTUS could RULE that to be the case... it still wouldn't be right.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?  Marriage law may not specifically say 'for heterosexuals only' but that is clearly the intent and result of making it only for men and women.

Is there anywhere that heterosexuals are prevented from marrying someone of the same sex?  If not, then your own logic would indicate that same sex marriage is not about sexuality.

You are basically saying that same sex marriage is different than opposite sex marriage because you say so.  You can point to no law or court ruling which indicates marriage is now about sexuality, you can point to no difference in marriage law for same sex couples and opposite sex couples which would differentiate one as being about sexuality and the other not, yet want people to accept that it is the case anyway.  Your own arguments, such as that homosexuals were free to get married prior to Obergefel, just to members of the opposite sex, can apply to same sex marriage, yet you still claim it is somehow different without actually explaining how.

It's easy to say your predictions are not wrong.  That's the thing about predictions and why they are so often intentionally vague.  Until the time of the predictions come to pass, the person making the prediction can continue to claim they are correct.  In this case, you've given a long enough time period that the odds are good none of the people reading them will still be in any contact with you when the time comes to pass.

You think a precedent has been set.  That's fine.  I disagree.  Since you are unable to either quote any part of the ruling which supports your claims, nor any other cases which do so, I will be comfortable considering your supposed constitutional expertise invalid.

Oh, and as I've already said, polygamy is not a sexual proclivity or type of sexuality.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 22, 2015)

jillian said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Typical libtard, comes up with the stupidest comment. did I say anything about being forced to marry a faggot dude? You are a moron.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me- do you see any philosophical or moral difference between 2 adults of the same gender having consensual sex- and....
> ...



What marriage changed to include interracial couples, was that right granted to all others?  Oh, but you might argue that interracial couples were still a man and a woman!  While true, why do only certain changes to marriage law open up marriage to all, but not others?  Something about sexual proclivity?  That's been gone over and you've been shown how your own logic argues against it, even if you ignore the fact that the ruling did not have to do with sexual proclivity.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You were the one who equated marriage to procreation...
> ...



All words have specific meanings.  Why are the words you choose incapable of being changed or added to?


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?



Because marriage wasn't based on sexuality. 



Montrovant said:


> Marriage law may not specifically say 'for heterosexuals only' but that is clearly the intent and result of making it only for men and women.



Nonsense, or there would be no homosexuals who ever got married. It doesn't matter what you think the intent was.. it's irrelevant. The Biblical intent of marriage was to consummate man with woman who was created from man.  "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:24  Christians regard marriage as a sacred institution, or as a covenant to God. And that is the intent and reason marriage exists in western culture. 



Montrovant said:


> Is there anywhere that heterosexuals are prevented from marrying someone of the same sex?



You can't marry someone of the same sex... it's an oxymoron. Homosexuals joining in a union with same-sex partners is no more a "marriage" than me drawing hundred dollar bills with crayons is currency. We can PRETEND... have a fantasy... but that doesn't change what IS. 



Montrovant said:


> You are basically saying that same sex marriage is different than opposite sex marriage because you say so.



No, I am basically not saying that.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But since the ruling doesn't actually say that- what you are saying is merely your opinion- an admittedly biased opinion. 

What the courts recognized- essentially again:

Americans have the right to marry
States can only deny that right if States can provide a clear and concise purpose and benefit denying that right will achieve.
Just as in each of the prior 3 marriage cases before the Supreme Court, States could provide no rational explanation as to why same gender couples should be denied their right to marry. 

Just as in each of the prior 3 marriage cases before the court- there is nothing in the ruling about accomodating sexuality- it is about recognizing Americans constitutional rights.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Wierdly enough- you keep insisting that marriage is the union between a man and a woman-
> ...



You were the one who said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now you want to add other conditions?

Lets list your new conditions:

between a man and a woman
both persons must consent
neither person can already be married
the two persons cannot be too closely related.
Clearly marriage is not just about being a man and a woman. That is but one of your own admitted criteria. In the past criteria might also include

the two persons could not be of different races
only with the legal consent of the woman's father or guardian
only with the payment of the dowry or bride price
only if the two are of the same religion
neither of the two  could owe any child support
neither of the tow could be incarcerated 
Marriage as an institution is whatever we say it is- with whatever criteria we make. However- when that criteria violates an Americans rights- such as in Obergefell and Loving- the Supreme Court correctly overturns such laws. 

And now your friends can get married if they want to- or not- if they do not want to- the same choice my wife and I had.

And that is the way it should be.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 22, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that.  So....what is your complaint then?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Maybe you could find something in Obergefell to support your claims- anything?

Lets quote Dred Scott- look right there is reference to the civil rights of blacks

_The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men "are created free and equal," is univer- 
sally accepted and made the basis of all our Institutions, State and National, and 
the relations of citizenship— the rights of the individual— in short, the status of the 
dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever. 

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, 
many (pcrhips most) American communities have latterly sought to include him 
in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the sup-Tior race. _

_The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent?
_
Really pretty sad- you comparing Obergefell to Dred Scott

Since Obergefell accomplished what we would agree that Dred Scott should have done- ensure the constitutional protections of Americans.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled over 11 years ago that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples marriage.

11 years later- still no sibling marriage- still no polygamous marriage. 

Could your 'predictions' come true? Possibly- of course your predictions have no more weight than mine.

And my prediction is that Obergefell will no more lead to mothers marrying sons than Loving did.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me- do you see any philosophical or moral difference between 2 adults of the same gender having consensual sex- and....
> ...



So you don't see any philosophical or moral difference between 2 adults of the same gender having consensual sex- and a 40 year old man having 'consensual' sex with a 4 year old girl?

I haven't said I want to deny marriage to anyone- that would be you telling us that right should be denied to homosexual couples. 

I have said all along- if States- and indeed if you- cannot provide any compelling reason why mothers should be forbidden from marrying their sons- then it should be illegal. I then have pointed to a judge pointing out what she considered to be a compelling reason against such marriages.

Do you have any compelling argument against a mother marrying her son- except 'tradition' or 'its icky'?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?
> ...



Since we don't base our laws on the Bible- why should base our marriage laws upon your interpretation of the bible?

Oh- and by the way- marriage existed in Western culture before Christianity even existed in Western culture.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> You can't marry someone of the same sex... it's an oxymoron. Homosexuals joining in a union with same-sex partners is no more a "marriage" than me drawing hundred dollar bills with crayons is currency. We can PRETEND... have a fantasy... but that doesn't change what IS.t.



You keep saying that- but I have witnessed two men marrying each other- and it was legal and lovely.

That you don't approve doesn't make marriage invalid.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> But since the ruling doesn't actually say that-



Rulings don't say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling.  In the Korematsu ruling, they did not say interning Japanese-Americans violates their Constitutional rights but we're going to ignore that and do it anyway. The Dred Scott ruling didn't say, this ruling clearly violates the civil rights of blacks but we're going to allow it anyway. When they upheld segregation laws, they didn't say... this violates the rights of these people but it's alright in this case... those things were not said in the ruling.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?
> ...



So you are the one to determine what marriages are based on?  I think not.

Are we now discussing religion?  I thought we were discussing a Supreme Court ruling and the repercussions you think will come from it.  Now you've decided it's about religion?  It's strange how, for someone who denies religious belief so much, you so often come back to it.

Legally, yes, you can marry someone of the same sex.  You can complain about it, deny it all you like, it's still true.  However, since you are apparently going to refuse to actually discuss the point, is there anything preventing heterosexuals from joining into a same sex legal union?  If not, that would mean it is not about sexual proclivities any more than opposite sex unions, correct?


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You were the one who said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now you want to add other conditions?



No, there has always been "other conditions" but we weren't discussing those.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> So you are the one to determine what marriages are based on? I think not.



I think not too... that's why I didn't say that.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > But since the ruling doesn't actually say that-
> ...



Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but neither have you provided evidence of how the ruling will be used to make the changes to marriage you predict, other than to tell us it will happen.  You have not shown where in the wording of the ruling it will lead to any and all potential forms of marriage being recognized legally.  You have not given examples of similar instances happening, neither in marriage law nor in any other law.  In fact, you've admitted that many of the types of relationships you talk about are already prevented from becoming marriages based on consent laws, but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning behind why that will happen.

In the end your arguments have boiled down to, "Because I say so".


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Are we now discussing religion? I thought we were discussing a Supreme Court ruling and the repercussions you think will come from it. Now you've decided it's about religion? It's strange how, for someone who denies religious belief so much, you so often come back to it.



You indicated you didn't know what the "intent" of marriage was if it wasn't exclusively for heterosexuals. I explained the Biblical intent and what Christians believe to illustrate your idea of "heterosexual-only marriage" was not ever an intent. 

I've never said that I deny religious belief. Where did you get that from?   I've said that I am not a religious person and I don't personally subscribe to the religious beliefs of any organized religion. That doesn't translate to me denying religious belief.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but neither have you provided evidence of how the ruling will be used to make the changes to marriage you predict, other than to tell us it will happen.



Well, I think I did, so I guess we disagree.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > So you are the one to determine what marriages are based on? I think not.
> ...



And yet here you are telling us that same sex marriage is based on sexuality, opposite sex marriage is not, and the word marriage is based on your interpretation of the Biblical definition of the word.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> ..but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning...



But I gave my reasoning. Same reasoning used to make homosexuality legal.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, I am telling you there is not a such thing as "same-sex marriage" and the meaning of marriage was altered to accommodate sexuality by SCOTUS. I explained to you the intent of marriage according to the original source for marriage in western culture.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Are we now discussing religion? I thought we were discussing a Supreme Court ruling and the repercussions you think will come from it. Now you've decided it's about religion? It's strange how, for someone who denies religious belief so much, you so often come back to it.
> ...



What I did was tried to show how your own reasoning refuted your argument about sexual proclivities being the basis for same sex marriage.  Marriage is neither an exclusively Christian institution, nor an originally Christian institution, nor has it been a static institution.  The origins of marriage are, for the most part, irrelevant to this discussion; we are talking about marriage as it pertains to the US today.


----------



## paperview (Sep 22, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?
> ...




lol.

Upon reading that ridiculous line in that flamingly queer OP, this was the first thing I flashed on:

Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock?


> Look, I'm not a hateful person or anything–I believe we should all live and let live. But lately, I've been having a real problem with these homosexuals. You see, just about wherever I go these days, one of them approaches me and starts sucking my cock.
> 
> Take last Sunday, for instance, when I casually struck up a conversation with this guy in the health-club locker room. Nothing fruity, just a couple of fellas talking about their workout routines while enjoying a nice hot shower. The guy looked like a real man's man, too–big biceps, meaty thighs, thick neck. He didn't seem the least bit gay. At least not until he started sucking my cock, that is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ..but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning...
> ...



You have yet to show a single sodomy law which involved consent.  Consent laws are going to be changed based on the right of consensual adults to privacy that was used to strike down sodomy laws?


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but....



BUT nothing! Shut up trying to stupidly argue that the SCOTUS ruling is supposed to somehow self-defeat itself or else it's valid. It's like me saying... hey, SCOTUS didn't say in the Dred Scott ruling that slaves should have civil rights and not be considered property... so that must not be the case!


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Are marriages only of a type described by the Bible?  No.  

Has marriage law changed in the past, redefining what marriage was legally?  Yes.

Can heterosexuals join a same sex union as easily as homosexuals can join an opposite sex union?  Yes.

Yet you think that this change in marriage law will open the floodgates where those in the past did not.  You think this change in marriage law was based on accommodating sexuality, but none in the past.  You think that homosexual unions are based on sexuality but heterosexual unions are not.  Your rationale for opposite sex unions not being about sexuality is that homosexuals are able to enter into such unions, yet the fact that heterosexuals can enter into a same sex union doesn't fit the same criteria.  Then you fall back on the Bible as though what the Bible says is the basis of US law.

There is such a thing as same sex marriage.  You can deny it, but that doesn't change the facts.  That may change, but at the moment, same sex couples can be legally married in this country (as well as others).  Do you think your displeasure with the Obergefel ruling makes the marriage certificates of same sex couples invalid?

Oh, and considering there were same sex marriages before the Obergefel ruling, you're wrong that the meaning of marriage was altered by the SCOTUS.  It had already been altered by state courts, state legislatures and state referendums.

You oppose same sex marriage.  Anyone reading this gets that.  Perhaps you should move on, or work toward a constitutional amendment changing things.  Or maybe that's what this thread is?  An attempt to sway people to your view through hyperbole, hoping that might eventually lead to changes in the law?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > But since the ruling doesn't actually say that-
> ...



Maybe you could find something in Obergefell to support your claims- anything?

Lets quote Dred Scott- look right there is reference to the civil rights of blacks

_The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men "are created free and equal," is univer- 
sally accepted and made the basis of all our Institutions, State and National, and 
the relations of citizenship— the rights of the individual— in short, the status of the 
dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever. 

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, 
many (pcrhips most) American communities have latterly sought to include him 
in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the sup-Tior race. _

_The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent?_

Really pretty sad- you comparing Obergefell to Dred Scott

Since Obergefell accomplished what we would agree that Dred Scott should have done- ensure the constitutional protections of Americans.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but....
> ...



But nothing?  What are you, 5?

Where have I argued that the ruling is supposed to be self-defeating?  I've asked you to show where your predictions come from the Obergefel ruling.  You have responded with such legally relevant responses as 'consent is easier to change than marriage' and 'the ruling was based on sexual proclivity' and provided no actual evidence of those things.  

You want your opinions taken as true without having to provide any actual evidence.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but neither have you provided evidence of how the ruling will be used to make the changes to marriage you predict, other than to tell us it will happen.
> ...



I would be curious to see what you consider to be 'evidence'- feel free to provide a quote from one of your posts that is anything other than your opinion.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ..but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning...
> ...



'reasoning' is just your opinion.

You have yet to provide a single quote from any ruling that made homosexuality legal to support your opinion- or your reasoning.

The Ruling was Lawrence v. Texas.

What reasoning(i.e. an actual quote- not your interpretation of what someone told you Lawrence v. Texas said) is within Lawrence v. Texas that supports whatever 'reasoning' you are making now?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



'the original source of marriage in western culture'?

Really?

Marriage is defined by us- not defined for us. 

50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples- even cited the Bible as 'evidence'- ultimately the courts rejected that.

Now the courts have rejected laws which prevented same gender couples from marrying.

Then and now what we still have is 'marriage'.

Not the marriage of Solomon. Not the marriage of Cicero. Not the marriage of King Henry the 8th. 

But our marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> What I did was tried to show how your own reasoning refuted your argument about sexual proclivities being the basis for same sex marriage. Marriage is neither an exclusively Christian institution, nor an originally Christian institution, nor has it been a static institution. The origins of marriage are, for the most part, irrelevant to this discussion; we are talking about marriage as it pertains to the US today.



What you are doing is trying to act incredulous. You already have several pro-gay-marriage members here admitting this was ALL about allowing homosexuals something. As I said from the start, there is no other compelling reason for the change in definition of marriage if it's not about sexuality. 

I never said it was "exclusively" anything. I presented the "intent" of marriage to you because you indicated you were confused as to the intent. And yes... in western culture, marriage has been pretty much a static institution since the 1500s and Protestant Reformation. 

Marriage as it pertains to the US TODAY, at least according to SCOTUS, is a matter of public record... it can't be debated. Is THAT what you think we're doing? Am I somehow obligated to overturn a SCOTUS ruling in order to prevail in the argument? If so, I surrender, you win! Game over! I can't do anything about what SCOTUS has ruled and what has become law of the land. That has nothing to do with my argument. If that's the argument you THINK we're having, then you win... no question about it... the SCOTUS ruled that marriage can be redefined to accommodate homosexuals. 

Again-- it has nothing to do with my argument.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No... I am the adult, you are the one who is acting 5. 

You didn't "argue" that the ruling is supposed to be self-defeating... you demanded I show you where the ruling defeats itself and unless I could show you that, it means the ruling is correct. By this criteria, black people are still property and have no constitutional rights. The case was decided by the SCOTUS and that's that! But as we know, this is not how things work in a Constitutional republic. We're not ruled by a court. Our rights are endowed by our Creator.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Since Obergefell accomplished what we would agree that Dred Scott should have done- ensure the constitutional protections of Americans.



But Obergefell doesn't do that. It creates a right that did not previously exist and confers it upon a specific group based on their sexual behavior. It actually violates the 1st Amendment rights of millions of Americans by restricting the free exercise of religion, as marriage is a seminal aspect of their beliefs.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> 50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples.



And yet... there were millions upon millions of "mixed-race" marriages all over America. As a matter of FACT... All four of my great grandparents were mixed-race marriages. What you had was a remnant of the era of segregation which explicitly denied *blacks* the rights that others were allowed. Again--homosexuals are not excluded from marriage between a man and woman and heterosexuals aren't allowed marriage between same-sex partners. No one was being discriminated against, especially on the basis of being a particular race. 

I realize segregationists used the Bible to justify their positions. They were wrong. The Bible doesn't condone or support racism. The Bible does, however, condemn homosexuality.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?
> ...



Now you're confusing civil with religious marriage. 

You can believe what you want, civil law doesn't have to reflect it.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


"Are marriages only of a type described by the Bible? YES! Gods word. Why do libtards always show their stupidity? Idiot.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > 50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples.
> ...



You think the racists are wrong. They are as certain of their biblical passages as YOU are. I think you're BOTH wrong.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Since Obergefell accomplished what we would agree that Dred Scott should have done- ensure the constitutional protections of Americans.
> ...



Loving did the same thing then.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What I did was tried to show how your own reasoning refuted your argument about sexual proclivities being the basis for same sex marriage. Marriage is neither an exclusively Christian institution, nor an originally Christian institution, nor has it been a static institution. The origins of marriage are, for the most part, irrelevant to this discussion; we are talking about marriage as it pertains to the US today.
> ...



As I have said, of course this was about homosexual couples.  However, if there nothing preventing heterosexuals from entering into a same sex marriage, then by your own reasoning, same sex marriage is not about sexuality.  You argued that opposite sex marriage is not about a person's sexuality because homosexuals could enter into an opposite sex marriage.

From what I've seen the Obergefel ruling was about equal access to marriage law.  That homosexuals were the ones being denied that access does not suddenly make marriage all about sexuality.  The ruling neither made homosexuality a requirement for same sex marriage nor any sort of sexuality a requirement or barrier to marriage between two consenting adults.

Marriage has changed many times throughout history.  Polygamy is the first type of marriage discussed in the Bible I believe.  It's been pointed out that there have been changes in marriage based on race, religion, finances, etc..  None of those changes led to sudden, extensive expansion of marriage to various types of groupings, did they?

We are talking about marriage as it stands today and as you think it will be in the future.  How is the origin of marriage particularly relevant to that?

The court did not redefine marriage, as it was already defined as between two consenting adults of any gender in much of the country before the Obergefel ruling.  It isn't as though marriage was only between a man and a woman throughout the entire US and its territories before Obergefel.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



In what way did I demand you show me the ruling defeats itself?  I'd like a quote, but even a paraphrase would do.  I asked you to show what part of the ruling supports your claims.  If your claims are counter to the ruling, that isn't my fault, nor does it make the ruling self-defeating.

We aren't ruled by a court, but the USSC is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws.  As I've already said, if you disagree with the ruling, you are free to push for a constitutional amendment to change things.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Do you realize that our laws are not the same as the Bible's laws?  I ask this honestly because I get the impression you might not.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> You think the racists are wrong. They are as certain of their biblical passages as YOU are. I think you're BOTH wrong.



Doesn't matter what you think, your sig line illustrates you're an idiot. I pay no attention to what idiots think. If you happen to run across any of these racist Christians, I'll be happy to school them on the bible passages they've taken out of context.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well, my claim was that the ruling will open the door for other similar groups to lobby for marriage based on their sexual lifestyles. I can't show you where that is in the SCOTUS ruling because it's not in there... they don't say what the ramifications of their new law is... they never do. 

The SCOTUS is not the "final arbiter" of any goddamn thing. I don't know why liberals believe this. It's certainly nowhere in the Constitution I've read. If this were the case, we'd still have slavery and blacks would still be property, women would still be unable to vote, schools would still be segregated, on and on and on. The SCOTUS can only make a ruling in a case... that doesn't have any legislative authority. 

As for an amendment to the Constitution, you might very well get what you wish for there.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > You think the racists are wrong. They are as certain of their biblical passages as YOU are. I think you're BOTH wrong.
> ...



And you can just as quickly be schooled on how you're taking bible passages out of context. You'd disregard it just like they would. 
You're both wrong and sure you're right. That's what bigots do...be they racist or anti gay.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Once a law is deemed unconstitutional by the USSC, is there any way for that law to be ruled constitutional other than through another USSC ruling or an amendment?  That makes them the final arbiter.  That does not give them the ability to create legislation, and they did not do that with Obergefel.  Instead they found laws banning same sex couples from marrying to be unconstitutional.  No new laws were written.

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law.  It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.  

The Obergefel ruling is based on gender, not sexual lifestyle.  A same sex couple could marry without ever having any sex.  How can that be based on a sexual lifestyle?


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> And you can just as quickly be schooled on how you're taking bible passages out of context.



And I respectfully disagree.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> That makes them the final arbiter.



Well... Sorry, no it doesn't.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> The Obergefel ruling is based on gender, not sexual lifestyle.



Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else. SCOTUS made it something else in their ruling and now we will live by what they made it into.... which is a vehicle to legitimize your sexuality.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law. It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.



*Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time...*
Uhm... hey idiot... that's *EXACTLY* what it means! 

*...It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.*
Yes, indeed it is!


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> That's what bigots do...be they racist or anti gay.



Or anti-Christian?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What I did was tried to show how your own reasoning refuted your argument about sexual proclivities being the basis for same sex marriage. Marriage is neither an exclusively Christian institution, nor an originally Christian institution, nor has it been a static institution. The origins of marriage are, for the most part, irrelevant to this discussion; we are talking about marriage as it pertains to the US today.
> ...



Changes to marriage since the reformation in the Western world:

As mentioned before- abolition of bans on mixed race marriage
Marital rape is no longer legal
Wives are no longer chattel as in not distinct legally from their husbands- but are now equal partners with husbands
Divorce is now legal and acceptable

Arranged marriages are no longer acceptable
And those are just the changes off the top of my head. I suspect that there are more.

Marriage is not static. If you had read any of the court cases regarding bans on same gender marriage you would have read about that.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What I did was tried to show how your own reasoning refuted your argument about sexual proclivities being the basis for same sex marriage. Marriage is neither an exclusively Christian institution, nor an originally Christian institution, nor has it been a static institution. The origins of marriage are, for the most part, irrelevant to this discussion; we are talking about marriage as it pertains to the US today.
> ...



Except that is not what the Supreme Court ruled.

You can of course believe whatever you want to- as you will continue to do.

Remember of course- this thread is about your rant about why looking back you believe Americans should never have let homosexual Americans have equal rights- apparently because you are upset about homosexuals being able to marry- and you fear they may force you to have sex with them.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well I don't believe that- but if you believe your rights came to you by a Creator- then so did the rights of homosexuals.

And by the way- in a Constitutional Republic, this is exactly how things work.

Look to Dred Scott as an example.

Supreme Court made a horrible- and completely legal decision. 
Americans corrected that decision with a Constitutional Amendment. 

The Supreme Court also ruled that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional- that ruling was not 'corrected' by a Constitutional Amendment- so is still in effect- and yes because of the Supreme Court now in the United States no State can ban marriages between mixed race couples- or same gender couples.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Since Obergefell accomplished what we would agree that Dred Scott should have done- ensure the constitutional protections of Americans.
> ...



No- and once again you misunderstand how the court ruled- and how a law being unconstitutional works.

Americans have a right to marriage- this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court repeatedly.


In _Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_ Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

The court has ruled 3 times previously that State bans on marriages were unconstitutional- none of those created 'new rights'- they recognized that the States bans on those marriages were unconstitutional.

And that is exactly what happened with Obergefell.  No 'new' right was established- the rights of same gender couples were recognized and laws were declared unconstitutional.

Obergefell has nothing to do with sexual behavior- despite your repeated claim that it does. 

And no one is forcing Americans to get married to someone of the same gender because Obergefell- so your overblown rhetoric and religious victimhood is just idiotic.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The Obergefel ruling is based on gender, not sexual lifestyle.
> ...



Marriage has more than one meaning.  It is certainly not up to you alone to decide that marriage cannot mean anything else.  You are not the authority on the definitions of words.

Marriage included same sex couples before the Obergefel ruling in some states.  Therefore, the court did not make the definition of marriage something else than what it was, as it already included same sex couples.

Would you like links to dictionary definitions of marriage which include same sex couples?  Or are you simply deciding on the definition of the word that you personally subscribe to and assuming that somehow must be the definition everyone uses?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > 50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples.
> ...



Oh the Bible......font of so much knowledge.

Christians for 200 years justified discrimination and segregation based upon quotes from the Bible. You know- like you do to support discrimination against homosexuals. 

The Bible among other things forbids divorce and remarriage, tells Christians to obey authority, and condemns the worship of idols.

Yet we have legal divorce and remarriage, we have Christians who refuse to obey authority citing the Bible, and we have Christians who do business with idol worshippers without any concern for their soul.

The Bible is no justification for legal discrimination against Americans. 

Ever.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law. It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.
> ...



As someone who has both complained of being insulted and refused to acknowledge being wrong even when quotes prove it to be the case, you sure do toss around words like idiot a lot.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > 50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples.
> ...



Mixed race marriage bans were not denying blacks rights that others had- Virginia was quick to point that out in Loving v. Virginia.

Blacks had every right to marry another black person- and whites had every right to marry another white person. They just were forbidden by law from legally marrying each other.

Gays had every right to marry an opposite gender person- and straights have every right to marry an opposite gender person. They were just forbidden from legally marrying the same gender. 

Marriage laws change. You don't have to approve- but that is no justification for your wholesale condemnation of homosexuals as in your OP.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



LOL.....why are you so damn ignorant?

You think that Buddhists don't get married? 

Why do you always show your stupidity?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your claim is amazingly similar to what the opponents of Virginia's ban on mixed race marriage claimed.

They were wrong. 

You are wrong.

Just your anti-homosexual bias coming through.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The Supreme Court is indeed the 'final arbiter' of what the Constitution says. 

If we the people disagree with their interpretation- then we can change the Constitution- as we did with Dred Scott- but haven't done with Citizen's United. 

Citizen's United- and Obergefel are in effect- whether you agree or disagree with either.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The Obergefel ruling is based on gender, not sexual lifestyle.
> ...



That is your opinion. 

It is not the reality. 

Long before the Supreme Court ruled, same gender couples were legally marrying in the United States. 

Courts first ruled in Massachusetts 11 years ago that bans on same gender couples marrying violated Massachusetts Constitution. Of course many other courts found the same thing. 

Then we have voter initiatives and legislation which recognized the legality of same gender marriages.

You can believe whatever you want.

But marriage is not just the 'marriage of male and female genders"


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law. It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.
> ...


The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.* As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.*


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 22, 2015)

I think it is more and more obvious that the OP was really just butt hurt over homosexuals being allowed to legally marry- and a cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating against homosexuals- in retaliation for 'gay marriage'

Once again the words of the OP- the call for action against homosexuals. 
_
I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. *They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. *Change your laws*! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years!* Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? *We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!*

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench *to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? *Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back *and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is norm*_


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Oh there are tons more. Native Americans couldn't legally marry in most of the country until the 20th century. In Appalachia there was no formal law governing marriages and it was common for girls to be married before they turned 13. Polygamist made up most of the Mormon religion in Utah and there it was common to find men married to 4 or more wives. Remember... Marriage has always been a State regulated and controlled institution. 

But beyond that, you know what else marriage has been in ALL the examples cited above, including your own examples?   The union of *male* and *female* as *husband* and *wife*. 

This IS what _"Marriage"_ IS. It is *NOT* something else.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




The Court can SAY whatever they want. THEY are NOT the final arbiters. *THE PEOPLE* are.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> ...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...




Hate to break it to you moron but you're never going to experience life in a society without discrimination. Especially if what you are doing is out of the ordinary. This is human nature and it is prevalent in every single one of us. YOU are the world's worst at discrimination because you are oblivious to it.  ....No? You want to tell me how much actual honest time you've spent considering how homosexual marriage conflicts with the religious, moral and ethical views of others? Yes, you ARE discriminating, whether you acknowledge you are or not, doesn't change the facts. And before you pop off with some long-winded explanation of how you're NOT discriminating against the religious, I'll remind you that bigots can always justify their positions. _ALWAYS!_


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



To paraphrase : Marriage has changed many times over the years.  However, it cannot change in this particular way.....because I say so.


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.


WTF?? Says who?


----------



## Faun (Sep 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

People can discriminate ... the law cannot without compelling interest. The 14th Amendment guarantees that. Civil marriage is law and like all laws, cannot discriminate without a compelling interest. You might not have the balls to defend your rights but gays proved they do.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 22, 2015)

As a person who's not fond of organized religion, I am finding vast amounts of humor in the fact that they pushed and pushed to force their religion into our legal system, despite clear directive to keep them separate - and now it's totally biting them in the ass heh


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.
> ...


God


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > And you can just as quickly be schooled on how you're taking bible passages out of context.
> ...




You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that bigots interpret the bible to suit their prejudices. Racist bigots do it and there is disagreement with their passages justifying their bigotry. Anti gay bigots do it, and there is disagreement with their passages justifying their bigotry. Same bigots different targets.


----------



## Faun (Sep 23, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


He doesn't make our laws. Not to mention, since when do Christians observe His words? G-d says we must observe the Passover, yet Christians don't.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science.  BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science. * BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.*



...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage. 

*Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.*
Then find another name to call it.
*
There is no religious justification behind state marriage.*
Then you can call it something else and it shouldn't matter. 

*It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights.*
Then redefine the laws and call it that. 

*The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.*
Well, that's funny because I don't have a church. I know a great deal about Christian religion and I do believe in a Spiritual Creator, but I am a Spiritualist and not a Religionist. The problem I have with all this is, as I have stated countless times, the role of government in dictating what we define as marriage. I am a very 'neutral' party in this but I am most often castigated by the left as being "anti-gay" or whatever. I am opposed to government involvement in the institution of marriage, particularly at the federal level. It's simply not their business and not within their constitutional authority to define marriage for everyone. At best, it is a State issue.... but even there, I don't condone the State telling ME what I can consider to be marriage. Whether gay or traditional. That should be left for ME to decide and if I want to put limitations or conditions on it with like-minded persons in my state, that should be done through the ballot box. 

*As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.* 
Twelve years ago, homosexuality was illegal in some states. At the time of the Loving decision, if anyone would have said that it would eventually lead to same-gender marriage, you would have been laughed out of the room. Yet, that is the 'go-to' case for gay marriage. I think it is YOU who lacks basic understanding of how our laws work. You see.... they can change! 

*Especially* when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...
> ...



LOL- once again you just don't have a clue about me- do you?

You are the one who started a call for Americans to return to the good old days of legal discrimination. 

I haven't called upon any Americans to be discriminated against- again that would be you. 

Here is your OP again- in all of its strident 'glory'

_I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

*One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges..*. and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what,* maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? *Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. *They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. *Change your laws*! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years!* Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? *We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!*

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench *to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? *Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles.* It's NEVER going to be enough!*

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back *and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is norm*_


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



According to you.

Not according to me- not according to the law.

Not according to the majority of Americans.

So this whole rant is just about you being upset that gay Americans can now legally marry each other.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The Courts are the final arbiters of the law. 

If the People disagree with the law, then they can change the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...
> ...



You prove that with every post you make.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science. * BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.*
> ...



History of same gender marriage

2001- Netherlands becomes the first country to allow same sex marriage.
2003- Belgium
2004- Massachusetts becomes the first state in the United States to allow same sex marriage- its been legal for 11 years in the United States.
2005- Canada

You are not very familiar with the history of man are you?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science. * BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.*
> ...



Oh marriage works perfectly fine as a name.  

But if you want to start a campaign to change the name in your state- feel free to do so. Maybe you can call it a 'civil union'?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science. * BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.*
> ...



So you think that Loving was a bad decision? 

Because when Virginia defended its mixed race ban- supporters of the mixed race ban said that ending the ban would lead to incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You know- like you claim Obergefel will do. 

So do you think Loving was a bad decision?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science. * BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.*
> ...



So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.
> ...



Gays just want to be accepted for what that are. 

Problem is, what they are is strange. 

So being accepted as strange little oddballs isn't good enough, so........

Just tellin it like it is folks.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You are the one who started a call for...



No, I didn't start a "call for" anything. I stated my opinion on a subject. You see, there is a big difference between you and I.  When it comes to my opinion, it is something I have thought about and formed without regard to whether anyone else agrees with me. I understand from the very beginning that my opinion might not be the popular opinion... might not even be the correct opinion. I believe I have the freedom to express it, and if others agree with it, perhaps it can one day be the basis for law but I have no preconceived expectations. 

You, on the other hand, rely on your political puppeteer to tell you what your opinion is and you fight fervently for that opinion to be forged into law and imposed on everybody against their will because you believe that is your duty to society. The concept of your opinion not being shared by others or being wrong is one you cannot entertain because this would render your political agenda meaningless and you can't have that. Of course, this causes you to believe that whenever you see someone express an opinion which contradicts you, as "calling for" something... because that is always the case with YOUR opinions.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



I think The People should ultimately legislate *everything.* 
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are *free* people.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Gays just want to be accepted for what that are.



Too bad... it ain't gunna happen in this life. Sorry! 

If THAT is the purpose in all this, it's a losing proposition.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Oh marriage works perfectly fine as a name.



Obviously, it does not.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



LMFAOoo.... Oh, okay.... let me clarify...

For 99.999% of human history humans survived without government-sanctioned same sex marriage. Only since 2001 it has become a thing.  

...Better? ...Good! Here's some Vaseline!


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why would I want such a law?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one who started a call for...
> ...



Yes you did- I have posted your full OP-this time I will edit it to the pertinent calls for action.

Sure it was done in a passive aggressive fashion- so you can be mealy mouthed about denying this is what you said- but here it is.

_I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.....


When does society stand up and say, you know what? *We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!....*

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench *to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? *Eventually, this is where this all leads 

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back *and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is norm*_


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Are you chaffed so you need that Vaseline?

You were mistaken- I will accept that you made a mistake rather than that you were lying when you claimed that 'not ever in the history of man'.

The history of marriage is a history of change. For most of the history of man, in most cultures, marriage included one man and multiple women. That is not a valid reason why we must accept polygamous marriage. 

'Tradition' was an argument that was attempted in Obergefel- and also in Loving- failed both times- and for the same reason.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



There is no "call for" anything in what you posted. 
Sorry! Not there, passive, aggressive or otherwise!


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You said and I quote

_I think The People should ultimately legislate *everything.*
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are *free* people_

And I asked whether you would accept- not whether you would want this law:

_Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?_


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Are you chaffed so you need that Vaseline?
> 
> You were mistaken- I will accept that you made a mistake rather than that you were lying when you claimed that 'not ever in the history of man'.



No, I din't make a mistake, I was obviously talking about until "NOW" in this age when suddenly we have to have something we've never needed before... Gay Marriage. You're just too dense and stupid to see context and too bigoted in your views to entertain thoughts outside your viewpoint.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you believe the Court was wrong in Loving v. Virginia?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Are you chaffed so you need that Vaseline?
> ...



I am glad to quote you again- not my problem you don't have the stones to just admit you made a mistake. 

_.And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.._

11 years is a considerable length of time for most of us. 

You made a mistake. 

Of course this whole thread is one big mistake- from the OP on.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And I asked you why we would want such a law?  

You're asking a stupid hypothetical question also known as a straw man argument. Congress would never entertain such a law because it obviously would require repealing the 1st Amendment... we're not ever going to do that. 

But to answer your question anyway... YES! I still think the People should rule Supreme and not only do I think they should, that is MY understanding of the Constitution and our form of government. If the people in 37 states ratified an Amendment to repeal the 1st and outlaw Judaism, that should be law of the land and SCOTUS should uphold it as such. That's never going to happen, not in ten bazillion years. But The People DO have the ultimate authority, not the court and not the government.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Okay so we are in agreement. 
Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional. 
If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.


----------



## Faun (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science. * BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.*
> ...


You remain fucking deranged.

The courts did not legislate morality. In fact, they didn't even legislate. That is a function of the Congress. The court decided a case based on equality demanded by the U.S. Constitution which invalidated laws in 13 states banning same-sex marriage. The other 37 states had already thrown out such bans. You know, what you call in _"the hands of the people to decide."_


----------



## Faun (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Then we the people could have amended the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. We the people chose not to do that. If anything, given that 3/4ths of the states had already legalized same-sex marriages, had there been a constitutional amendment, it likely would have been to define marriage as being between two consenting people over the age of consent according to each state.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> ...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.



Actually, that may not be the case.  I have read that there are instances of same sex marriage in the ancient world.  Here's a brief article which gives some examples : Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage.  I can't speak to the veracity of the history, but it seems at least some historians believe that legal same sex marriages have occurred in the distant past.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



In most of the 37 states it was federal court rulings that overturned the bans, not the states. It was the hands of a few black robed "people" who decided.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Okay so we are in agreement.
> Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
> The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
> If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
> ...



*Okay so we are in agreement.*
Highly doubtful... unless I had a frontal lobotomy I wasn't aware of. 

*Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.*
Yes!

*The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.*
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional. They can only rule on cases brought to the court through the appeals process, where a person's constitutional rights might be violated by the law. This renders that portion of the law invalid until congress fixes the issue which conflicts with someone's constitutional rights. 

*If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.*
Again, they don't decide if a law is constitutional. There is a plaintiff who brings a case before the court seeking remedy for a right they claim is infringed. The court decides if their rights are infringed. If so, that part of the law which caused the infringement is void. Congress can act to pass another law which rectifies the injustice. 
*
If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.*
True, OR... Congress can act to fix the part of the law which is egregious, OR... SCOTUS can reverse their decision at a later date... but this is rare. 

*So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.*
The Supreme Court only has authority to determine if rights are violated by the law in the cases brought before the court. The argument was, is the SCOTUS the "final arbiter" and they are not. The People are the FINAL arbiter. Always.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.  There is no religious justification behind state marriage.  It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not.  The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.  As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.  In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age.  This really is not rocket science. * BTW, gays have been around as long as man has.  This is not some new phenomenon.*
> ...




Fine, if it will make you happy, from now on we will call state marriage fuckamahoochi.  Now all people straight or gay can go to get their fuckamahoochi license and get fuckamahoochied.  You will have to ask your church if they will marry you with a fuckamahoochi license.  Happy now?


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> *The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.*
> False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional.



Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff. 

_The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. *It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution* *and is, therefore, no longer a law*. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution._​


----------



## Faun (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Okay so we are in agreement.
> ...


You are fucking deranged.

Now you're claiming the Supreme Court *doesn't* decide on the constitutionality of laws while you're describing how they *do * decide on the constitutionality of laws.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.*
> ...



Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education". 

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true. 

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! _Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down!_   ...Not how it works! 

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone. 

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.  

_*The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...*_

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves. 

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals. 

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse.  However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



They don't decide anything about laws. They decide cases brought before them regarding the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional?  If not, then yes, they are the final judge.  Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges).  Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written.  Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.  

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional"    ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution.  The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change. 

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Sep 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You have no idea what you are talking about. Still hilarious when nonbelievers try to tell Christians what the Bible says, and fails miserably. I observe Passover as does my Church and many Christians I know. Go smoke your weed witch and leave reality to grownups.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution. 

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.



Well that's a matter of opinion. I think that recognition by government of homosexual marriage is a violation of the religious freedom rights of others. I don't think you have the right to codify your sexual behavior through marriage by redefining marriage and I don't think your individual rights are violated because of not permitting you to redefine marriage. 

SCOTUS rulings don't change my opinion. They might change what is legally accepted as "constitutional" for now but that can change.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.
> ...



How?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

Obergefell does not require that you enter a same gender marriage. It doesn't even require you as an individual approve of same gender marriages.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well it's obvious. It required Kim Davis to have to issue a license to do something she is religiously bound to reject and condemn. The law is now going to obligate others to be faced with the same problem. If you are a secular who has a very low moral bar, it is difficult to present you with an analogy to compare this to, but people are bound to their religious beliefs as a part of their religious exercise and when you've made laws which impinge on those beliefs there is a problem.


----------



## David_42 (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Hey, you do realize satanists could use the same argument?


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Again... what do we mean when we say "is constitutional"?  Does it mean what SCOTUS currently, at the time, has ruled "is constitutional" or is it what actually adheres to the principles of the Constitution? Before a case and ruling, is a law not "constitutional" by virtue of being legitimately passed by Congress and having become law of the land? What about all the hundreds of laws which may or may not violate the rights of someone but the case has never reached the Supreme Court? Are those laws "constitutional" or could that be changed? 

I have not argued the SCOTUS opinion is invalid, just that it's wrong. There are ways to render it irrelevant without an amendment. Those who think this ruling settles the issue once and for all and that "gay marriage IS constitutional" need to remember that what "is constitutional" amounts to a meaningless term. For now, it "is constitutional" but that can change and it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...




Homosexuality's been a percentage of every culture all along. People's inability to tolerate it seems to have a lot to do with accepting the reality that sexuality isn't as either/or as most would seem to prefer. Kinsey's 1's and 6's (all gay or straight) aren't the majority. Vast majority of a given population are some degree of bisexual. And this reality is why some have such a problem with homosexuality and sexuality in general. "That's kinda like me." And their impression of themselves as straight and 'normal' is challenged.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

David_42 said:


> Hey, you do realize satanists could use the same argument?



Not really... as far as I know, we don't have laws which require Satanists to act in moral contradiction of their religion. If so, they should bring a case and see if they can get it appealed up to SCOTUS for a ruling.


----------



## Boss (Sep 24, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> ...



What you raise is yet another aspect of all this that is often overlooked. There is a difference between your sexuality and your sexual behavior. You can be gay but not practice homosexual behavior. You can practice heterosexual behavior and be totally gay. You can be attracted to both sexes and be completely asexual. You can be hetero but bi-curious. You can be homo but bi-furious!  

Trannys.. do they like other trannys?  Do they like heterosexual men who like trannys? Do they like women? I'm a totally straight virile male who likes women but hey... if we're living in a new sexual revolution and I can get laid by dressing as a tranny, I might give that a shot! Get some tequila in me and show me the dresses mutherfuckers!   

My whole problem with this entire issue is that "government in the bedroom" thing. I don't like the government being in the bedroom, even if it's to tell me that gay sex is okay.   Because, what inevitably results is change and soon the government is in your bedroom telling you which positions are approved.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Homo/Hetero.Bisexuality are all just words. Coined it's worth mentioning by a lunatic German back in the 19th century who maintained any sexual behaviours not done for reproductive was pathological. So maybe consider the source. 

I assert sexual orientations don't even exist but rather we all belong to one nebulously defined "sexual" or "not sexual" category. As conditions and circumstances change, so too does a person's sexuality. As with prisoners. As when intoxicated. As with for money. But the word a person may choose to label themself with no more binds them to its definition than any other word does. Can say you're whatever orientation you like because at that moment it seems to fit. Then 20 years down the road you might change how you define yourself. So how objectively valid was the first term or the latter one? They're just words. They don't control us or turn us into automotons. We have sex with whoever's willing at a given moment, and that then is our sexuality. But given the right circumstance(s) we can have different sex as with same-sex sex the very next time we're sexual. 

The words don't mean anything.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Who determines what 'actually adheres to principles of the Constitution?

Sure you can think that State laws against mixed race marriage or same gender marriage were perfectly Constitutional- while others thought they were not.  Some people thought state laws banning gun ownership were constitutional- and others felt such laws were not.

The Supreme Court is who determines what adheres to the principles of the Constitution- that is who is entrusted to make that decision in our system because there is ALWAYS disagreement about what is Constitutional. 

We may not agree with the Courts decision- but it is always Constitutional at that time.  Dred Scott was a horrible decision- but it was Constitutional.

So we changed the Constitution. 

If Dred Scott was not Constitutional- we would have had no need to change the Constitution in regards to Dred Scott.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And the religious freedom of gay couples?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. 

Why don't you care about their religious freedom?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, you do realize satanists could use the same argument?
> ...



Anyone could make a plausible argument that almost any law violates their religion. 
This is the problem with saying people should not have to obey laws that they say violates their religion.

There are Christian sects that believe that dancing is immoral. Would that mean such a Mayor could forbid dancing in a City because it would violate his or her religion? How about forbid the issuance of liquor licenses because he believes that drinking is a sin?

What about Muslim cab drivers who are obligated by law to transport blind passengers, but refuse blind passengers with guide dogs on religious grounds?

Can a judge refuse to sentence a murderer to death on religious grounds?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There are three ways to change something that you consider unconstutional

A constitutional amendment ala Dred Scott and the 13th and 14th Amendments
The Supreme Court reversing itself- something that no one can predict or effect or
Breaking the law


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well... Since Dred died in 1858, we didn't change the Constitution for his benefit. Seems to me I recall a rather massive Civil War that happened after Dred was dead, which was the impetus for change to the Constitution. Then, for the next 100 years, we "relied on SCOTUS to determine constitutionality" and had institutionalized segregation.  

We can look back on some really awful SCOTUS rulings and wonder how such things could have been considered "in the spirit of constitutional principles" at all. In fact, in virtually every ruling there is a dissenting opinion which makes an argument against the ruling. This sometimes gives us insight into how a particular case was won or lost, what the other side of the coin was... because there is almost always other constitutional rights in play. 

Very often, the SCOTUS is not simply deciding a case based on one specific constitutional right, it involves several and from various perspectives and parties. It would be impossible to have every law on the books never infringe on anyone's constitutional rights ever. The SCOTUS could never issue a ruling if they were charged with ensuring everyone's constitutional rights were respected. Very often, their ruling is a case where constitutional rights collide. You believe you have a right and I believe I have a right, and the SCOTUS determines which one of us has the more important right. It's not guaranteed they get it right. 

*Sure you can think that State laws against mixed race marriage or same gender marriage were perfectly Constitutional- while others thought they were not.*

And SCOTUS rulings don't always resolve these issues. That is my point. Obviously, mixed race marriages were banned for many years after the 14th Amendment and I'm sure SCOTUS rejected many cases through the years contesting this. Some cases may have never made it that far, they were shot down at the appeals level and never reached SCOTUS. That is what makes cases like Dred Scott so important... it represents more than a single case that made it to the SCOTUS where the court made a ruling. It represents hundreds of cases that never made it that far, thousands of cases that were never brought, millions of people who were denied their constitutional rights for many years. It also illustrates how even the SCOTUS, with all it's wisdom and understanding of the Constitution, can still get it totally wrong.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Again, you are missing some other ways. Congressional legislation can create another case which the SCOTUS could render a ruling that supersedes a previous ruling. We can look at CRA for examples of this. After Civil Rights passed in '64, people could make a discrimination argument they couldn't make before. This changes the nature of a previous ruling issued in absence of that legislation. The court doesn't have to "reverse" a previous decision, the new ruling simply supersedes it. 

Also, another unrelated case can be brought regarding constitutional rights effected by the results of a ruling. Perhaps it is something the court overlooked in their previous ruling or they didn't address adequately? 

Finally, the Congress can enact legislation which  renders a SCOTUS ruling irrelevant. Let's make a hypothetical using "gay marriage" for example... If Congress passed legislation rendering "marriage" obsolete from a government perspective, no longer recognizing ANY kind of marriage... it's no longer possible to "discriminate against gays" or anyone else, since marriage doesn't exist anymore in the eyes of government. For the record, I think something like this will eventually be what we have.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 25, 2015)

In other words; We forced you to play with us, but you're not playing the way we want so we're taking our ball (marriage) and going home!

Not that I care particularly.  I'd be fine with another "name" for "marriage" as a "legal" binding of two people to more easily allocate various "couples rights."


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 25, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> In other words; We forced you to play with us, but you're not playing the way we want so we're taking our ball (marriage) and going home!
> 
> Not that I care particularly.  I'd be fine with another "name" for "marriage" as a "legal" binding of two people to more easily allocate various "couples rights."



Probably right

Ever wonder why marriage was the formation of a new family where none previously existed?

The answer is pretty obvious, but now absurd.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 25, 2015)

Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe...  I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)

Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit. 

Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans.  Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now...  Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing.  It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway.  Sad.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 25, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe...  I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)
> 
> Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit.
> 
> Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans.  Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now...  Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing.  It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway.  Sad.



I don't completely disagree, but if a law exist, the call it what it is, simply a financial tool, like an LLC or S corp.

The argument that marriage creates a family where none other previously existed (so the State would not then be sanctioning incest, and damaged bloodlines) is absurd when many that could marry, for financial reasons, could not procreate, and many others would never think of having intercourse with each other. 

See, some of us argue the point without a religious basis. None is actually needed. In its present form, the institution is absurd.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe...  I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)
> 
> Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit.
> 
> Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans.  Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now...  Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing.  It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway.  Sad.



Our religious freedom is something a lot of secular people simply have indifference to. I have always been in favor of some kind of civil unions to replace traditional marriage as far as government recognizing domestic partnership. I think that resolves the issue for all involved to the best we can hope to ever resolve it. And no, I don't want some "separate but equal" thing for gays, I said a replacement for all things "marriage" related to government or legal matters.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe...  I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)
> ...



Right...you've "always" advocated for such a thing. "Always" as in as soon as gays started winning.

Nothing stopping you from getting it changed. Everyone will still call it marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well I think that what you wrote was lucid- and interesting- and not particularly applicable to my post that you are responding to. 

The Supreme Court when it rules on a case is ruling on the law- they are not tasked with convincing society that Americans have the right to access to contraceptives- they address the legal issues of the rights of the plaintiffs. 

We have three branches of government - the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. 

Which branch has- or should have- the authority to decide whether a law violates an Americans rights?

If it were the Legislative- well then they would have carte blanche to write laws for instance banning private gun ownership- and gun owners would have no recourse to protect their rights if the voters of that state wanted to ignore the Bill of Rights.

Much the same with the Executive Branch.

That leaves the Supreme Court as the final arbiter- the ultimate legal authority- regarding the Constitution. You and I may disagree with their decisions- but someone has to be entrusted with making the decisions. 

And yes- the Supreme Court can get it wrong- just often no one agrees on what they did get wrong. 

I am not really sure what your point is- can the Supreme Court make decisions that people may not agree with? Obviously. 

Are those decisions still legal, and still the legal interpretation of the Constitution- absolutely.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But that wouldn't make the Supreme Court ruling 'irrelevant' because Americans- regardless of the gender of their spouses- would still be treated equally. 

More to the point- there is no law that Congress can pass that would nullify the reality of Obergefel- which prohibited States from having discriminatory marriage bans against same gender couples.  Congress cannot tell States what to do in regards to marriage, nor can Congress decide to ignore marriages that are legal in a state. That was what DOMA was all about. 

If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone. 

But it is not going to happen. At most, States will make accomodations so the "I am a Christians when it comes to homosexuals" folk don't have to issue marriage licenses to gays, after the 3 licenses they issued to the divorcees and Hindu's and convicted felons.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe...  I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)
> ...



Now if only this had been your OP rather than the rant that was your OP.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry



Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry
> ...



Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 25, 2015)

Or the religious freedom of anyone frankly, I don't believe in the Christian teachings that homosexuality is a sin or wrong, even if I'd wished to enter into a heterosexual marriage I could not have in that county because of /her/ actions and /her/ religious beliefs.  That is a clear infringement upon my rights regardless of my sexual orientation.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.
> 
> But it is not going to happen. At most, States will make accomodations so the "I am a Christians when it comes to homosexuals" folk don't have to issue marriage licenses to gays



You really do believe this is all about some kind of rights for gay couples, don't you?  Let me clue you in... this is about legitimizing homosexual behavior. Making accommodations for Christians is contradictory to the objective here. If they ever intended such a thing, they would have taken the "civil unions" approach we discussed earlier. They aren't interested in making things "equal" for gay couples. They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values. 

What's even worse and more sinister is this isn't even about legitimizing homosexual behavior for the homosexual. They are merely the pawns being exploited... useful idiots. The overall objective is to destroy America. In order to do that, you have to remove the moral underpinning first.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 25, 2015)

...are you really arguing that gay people only want to get married to piss off Christians?

Two words; conspiracy theory.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> ...are you really arguing that gay people only want to get married to piss off Christians?
> 
> Two words; conspiracy theory.



No, not to piss off Christians. You didn't read what I wrote.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Or the religious freedom of anyone frankly, I don't believe in the Christian teachings that homosexuality is a sin or wrong, even if I'd wished to enter into a heterosexual marriage I could not have in that county because of /her/ actions and /her/ religious beliefs.  That is a clear infringement upon my rights regardless of my sexual orientation.



Go run for county clerk in Kentucky! Maybe you'll win?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.
> ...



Well this whole thread is about your rant about homosexual behavior becoming legitimized and how it pisses you off.

See, unlike you- I have real friends who happen to be gay. Therefore, I don't start threads attacking people who include my friends because I am not threatened by their having equal legal rights.

I don't know what you really believe. This thread is all over the place with you comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, predictions that gays are going to be requiring straights to have sex with them.

What do you think was the purpose of your thread? 

Have you shown it to your 'gay friends'?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.
> ...



Frankly you are either ignorant- or a liar.

Christians were the ones who insisted on imposing their religious beliefs on homosexuals by banning same gender marriage. But they went beyond that- they also were concerned about homosexuals who were starting to get civil unions in some states- so they passed laws forbidding not only same gender marriages but also forbid recognition of civil unions

Take a look at Georgia's law- banned gay marriage and civil unions. If Christians were only opposed to gays using the term 'marriage' then they wouldn't have passed laws forbidding the recognition of civil unions.

And when I say 'Christians' I mean Christians who suddenly find their faith when it comes to denying equal rights to homosexuals. 

Now lets look at the gay couples who actually did file law suits arguing they deserved to be treated equally.

Case #1- DOMA- Christian politicians passed laws forbidding federal recognition of same gender marriages- even when states legalized them- Edith Windsor and her spouse were together for 40 years. Ms. Windsor and her wife legally married a few years before Ms. Spyer died and then cared for her for her remaining years as Ms. Spyer slowly died from a debilitating disease.
The Federal government however refused to recognize their legal marriage so Ms. Windsor had to pay inheritance taxes that she would not have had to pay if her spouse had been a man. 

She was looking for equality- nothing else. And after fighting hard she got it.

Case #2- Obergefell- similar situation- they were together I believe 30 years. Never did they ever attack Christians for passing the laws forbidding them marriage in their state- eventually when his partner was so ill he could barely move, they flew to a state where they could legally marry.

They were looking for equality- I can only hope that my wife and I have that kind of devotion to each other when our health fails.

These are the couples you think its okay to legally discriminate against- so that some Christians aren't offended.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.
> ...



The only idiot I have seen in this thread was the one who started the OP.

I find those of you who have so little faith in America and Americans getting what you deserve- the paranoia and frustration. 

Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to embrace and enjoy America.

You can gnash your teeth and pull your chest hairs and bemoan that gays are getting married.

The rest of us will celebrate how wonderful America is.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Homosexual couples have been getting married in churches for years. Various churches recognize same gender marriage- when they seek to marry their religious rights are actually as equally valid as Ms. Davis'.

You want the State to deny them their religious belief- but the state cannot do that anymore- but you were okay when the State could.

Which goes to show how deep your concern for 'religious freedom' is.

Basically it begins and stops with 'homosexual'.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > ...are you really arguing that gay people only want to get married to piss off Christians?
> ...



Pretty sure I did, but apparently "They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values." doesn't mean the same thing in your world...


Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values".   It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior."  I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay.  Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married."  As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage.  It's really that simple.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 26, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



I think the 'they' he was referring to are the mysterious, sinister someones who are the real force driving for marriage equality.  So 'they' only want gay people to get married to piss off Christians, apparently as part of a plan to destroy America.

That may sound even sillier now that I've typed it out.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You see, I have a problem with this solution.  If a black man or woman were being discriminated against at work, we could not say... well, they can go work someplace else, so their rights aren't denied.  When you and others go protest this and a cop pops you in the head with a billy-club, we could not say... well, you could have protested on another street so your rights weren't violated. Now, as long as Ms. Davis didn't fire some homosexual from their job or bop someone in the head with a club, there is no comparative argument. 

Ms. Davis rights have not been denied. She refused to allow that and was put in jail. You still have not denied Ms. Davis her rights as she has still not put her signature on a license for gay marriage, and I predict she never will. When any  argument comes down to God's Word vs. Liberal's Word, guess who will win most of the time with Christians? This poses a real problem for homosexuals in a country that is 80% Christian.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Pretty sure I did, but apparently "They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values." doesn't mean the same thing in your world...



Not it doesn't because you didn't include the rest of what was said with puts this in context. Christian values are not attacked in order to piss of Christians. They are attacked in order to bring down Christianity which is the moral underpinning of our society. So it's about destroying moral underpinnings and not pissing people off.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It isn't a solution, it's an attempt to show how your reasoning works in another setting.  It isn't a direct analogy, but it's intended more to show how the seeming intent applies somewhere else.  

Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples?  At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?  

What about someone like a Supreme Court justice who is appointed for life?  If they have a religious conflict with some law, should they be allowed to ignore that law for the duration of their term, even if it affects their duties?

Should police be able to ignore new laws they disagree with based on religious principle?  

Is there some sort of limit to how long a person may continue in a position while refusing to perform all of the duties involved because of a religious conflict?

There are a lot of questions and details involved in the idea that a government representative can pick and choose which new laws to follow/enforce/comply with.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...
> 
> /I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.



Good for you! And when you get to be the King of your own country and can make your own Constitution, you are free to practice your beliefs and force your subjects to practice them as well. You don't have that right here. 

All of you keep yapping about "equal rights" but you've not demonstrated where homosexuals didn't already have equal rights. You created something that does not exist, no one else gets to do it, and so you try to call it something else and then complain your "rights" are denied. 

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it?  Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, _"going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot."_ I know you probably disagree with my lifestyle (which harms no one), but I have a right to call this "Love in the Park" and you must give me _equal rights._ If you deny me my equal rights to Love in the Park, you are a bigot and we have to hoot you down. 

You can point out that what I want to do is NOT "Love in the Park" but I'm going to ignore you and continue to insist you are denying me "equal rights" of everyone else who enjoys legitimate and "traditional" love in the park. Furthermore, I am going to impress upon the media to embrace my campaign of "equality for love in the park."  I'll even get the rogue SCOTUS to rule that my type of love in the park can't be banned and has to be treated the same as all other kinds of love in the park. And that's where we are with Gay Marriage... it is something that doesn't exist, never existed before, people didn't have the right to call it marriage, no one was being discriminated against and allowed to do it while others were denied.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?



I don't know, that's not for me to answer or figure out... I didn't make Gay Marriage a thing. Perhaps SCOTUS should have addressed this aspect when they were making their "social justice" ruling?

I honestly don't know what pushes liberals over the edge morally... I've racked my brain trying to think of some comparative example you could relate to. Perhaps your morals and ethics are just so shallow and malleable there isn't a good example?  But think of something inside your little pinhead that you totally object to morally.... I don't know what, maybe "waterboarding?"  Now, let's say you are in a position of authority and it's your job to issue the permits for whatever this thing you disagree with. Could you sign your name indicating your approval of said thing? Would it be right to say, you've GOT to sign your name to it and approve of it or we're going to throw you in jail?

IF Marriage (including gay marriage) is a RIGHT... why does it depend on the approval of some other person or party to the action or even government at all? If it's a RIGHT it shouldn't have to depend on anything or anyone.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So now you want to compare Ms. Davis being told to do her job- with a black person being told to do his or her job?

Ms. Davis has not been discriminated against- she is being asked to do exactly the same thing as every other employee is asked to do- black or white- Christian or Jew. 

If she were refusing however to issue marriage licenses to a black and white couple- or a Jewish couple- claiming that would violate her religious beliefs- she would never have gotten any support except from the Stormfront crowd. 

And I know you are going to say 'but there is no religion which says to discriminate against blacks or Jews"- and to that I say- 'says who'? 

If you allow someone to discriminate against a person by claiming it would violate their personal religious beliefs- then either you allow any person to make any claim about their personal religious beliefs- or you have the government deciding which are 'legitimate religious beliefs'

Anyone in favor of the government deciding what a genuine religious belief is?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well most Liberals are Christian in America- and right now most Americans belief that gay couples should be allowed to marry.

I agree- living in a country that is 80% Christian has posed a real problem for homosexuals- because Christians are behind the legal discriminatory laws that were enacted to attack homosexuals. 

From criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults in private- if they are gay- to laws requiring the firing of teachers- if they are gay- Chrisitians have been- and still are- behind the efforts to have legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Homosexuals would have every reason to resent Christians based upon the history of discrimination and bigotry they have endured.

But since most homosexuals are also Christian- that probably explains why homosexuals have been far, far more tolerant than Christians have been.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty sure I did, but apparently "They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values." doesn't mean the same thing in your world...
> ...




Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians who want to play the victim card.

Meanwhile no one is preventing a single Christian from worshipping. 

No one is saying that Christians should not follow Jesus's first or second commandment to his followers. 

There are not groups of homosexuals out there burning down churches.......and I could say something pithy about who is burning down churches- but its not homosexuals- or liberals. 

The only thing that will 'bring down' Christianity in America is if Americans decide that the people who claim to be Christians no longer represent American values.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...
> ...



LOL- yet who is the one arguing that America went to far in 'tolerating homosexuals'? 

that is is you.

And who is arguing that the Supreme Court is wrong- that would be you- you want to force your beliefs on everyone who agrees with the Supreme court. 

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage. Seawitch could not marry her partner legally in the same way that I was able to marry my wife- not equal rights. 

And dozens of courts recognized this- and ultimately the Supreme Court recognized this- and you are still upset that homosexuals are getting equal rights.

That is what this entire thread is about.

Your butthurt that homosexuals are now being treated far more equally under the law in the United States.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Do you fucking DROOL when you post? For some reason, I imagine you as someone who can't control his drool. No I didn't compare Davis with a black man being asked to do his job and I honestly don't know how you derived such nonsense from what I posted. 

You can't be asked to do a job that fundamentally violates your religious or moral principles. It's no different than if SCOTUS ruled it a constitutional right to torch churches and Ms. Davis job was to issue burn permits for said torchings. It's not about denying rights to those who want to burn churches. She shouldn't have to leave her job or else sign her name to something she doesn't condone and which contradicts her fundamental religious beliefs. 

Now... I never said ANY religious belief MUST be respected in ALL cases. That is YOU trying to be obtuse and dodge the point. I have repeatedly used the word "fundamental" and it's not because I just like using big words, it means something. Traditional marriage is a fundamental tenant of Christian religion and most organized religions. FUNDAMENTAL..._*forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.*_


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?
> ...



First, I am not a liberal.  

Second, and again, it is funny that you complain about being called names yet so often do it to others.

Third, if I were morally opposed to something going on where I worked, I might consider quitting.  If I were morally opposed and wanted to end whatever it is I opposed, sure, I might do something similar to Mrs. Davis....however, considering she has decided to return to work while other employees give out marriage licenses, I find it unlikely that her intention is to end the practice through her actions.

Fourth, Mrs. Davis was not given only two choices.  She was free to resign, and based on everything I've read of the case, she was free to allow her subordinates to give the licenses prior to going to court and being held in contempt.  The narrative about Mrs. Davis and her choices often seems to be disingenuous.

Fifth, having a right does not mean that there will be no government involvement.  Owning a gun is a right yet one is often required to get a license.  Assembly is a right yet one might need to get permission to assemble in a particular place at a particular time.  

Sixth, while it may not be for you to figure out, you brought up the idea that being able to go to another county means the couples who wanted wedding licenses didn't have their rights violated.  I'm trying to determine just what the boundaries of that concept are in your mind, I'm not expecting you to have any ability to determine the law.

Finally, I have serious doubts about the true nature of Mrs. Davis' supposed religious convictions.  As has been pointed out on this subject before, there is no evidence that Mrs. Davis denied any other marriage licenses on religious grounds, despite the admonitions of the Bible about things like divorce.  Why, I wonder, was her religious belief only violated by same sex marriages and not other types of marriage Christianity is against?  It strikes me as a very selective reading of religion in order to deny gays rather than a deeply held belief.  Whatever the case, though, she is free to refuse to perform her duties and give licenses but she will face the consequences so long as the law allows same sex couples to marry.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...



Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference. 



Syriusly said:


> No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.



Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality. 

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional.  We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society. 

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation."  I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically  rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...
> ...



Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren. 

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?
> ...



Sigh.

Owning guns is a right- yet you still can be denied that right if you are convicted of a felony. Further- the state can require you to have a permit to own certain kinds of guns.

Churches still require building permits. A political rally in a public park will still require a permit. 

Now if you want to get the government out of marriage completely- well you are welcome to declare you are going to take all of your toys and go home.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...
> ...



However, opposite sex couples are not being granted civil unions or anything else.  They are granted marriages under the law.  You have an issue with the word being used, and I've already said that I have absolutely no problem changing the name.  Civil unions for all seems fine to me, but I see very little chance of that happening in the near future.  That isn't because of gays, but because marriage as a legal institution is far too ingrained in our society.

I've also pointed out that men and women were denied legal marriages based on their gender.  A woman could legally marry a man but a man could not do the same thing, and vice versa.

I can sympathize with your complaint about the use of the word marriage, however, to try and say that the law should be invalid because of this kind of semantics issue seems petty.  Words mean what society accepts them as meaning, and those meanings often change.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?
> ...



Frankly the only one I have seen displaying low morals and ethics in this thread is you.

Let us use marriage as an example- let us pretend for a moment that you and I are both the government officials entrusted to issue marriage licenses in our state- here are some examples of where I would stand

A mixed race couple comes in and asks for a marriage license. I issue said marriage license
A Jewish couple comes in and asks for a marriage license. I issue said marriage license.
A couple come in- each is happy to announce that this is the fourth marriage for each of them- I issue said marriage license.
A couple come in- both practicing Catholics, but one got a civil divorce- I issue said marriage license.
I get a request to issue a marriage license to a couple, one of whom is serving life in prison- since this is legal- I issue a marriage license.
A couple comes in- the man owes child support to the mother of his child- I issue a marriage license.
A couple comes in- two men and asks for a marriage license- I issue said marriage license. 

A man comes in with a 4 year old girl- and asks for a marriage license for the two of them- I refuse them a marriage license and I notify the police of possible child abuse.
A teenage couple come in and want to marry- at their age they require either their parents permission or a judges consent to marry- they have neither- so I refuse to issue them a marriage license. 

A mother and son- both adults- come in- asking for a marriage license- it is illegal in my state for  a mother and son to marry- so I don't issue them a marriage license.
A man comes in with 5 women- and asks for a marriage license for all 6 of them- I point out that in our state that polygamous marriage is first of all illegal and secondly the marriage certificate only has space for the names of two parties- I refuse to issue a marriage license. 

Then the man asks for a marriage license for himself- and one of the women- I issue the marriage license. 

My challenge to you? Go through my examples and tell us which 'couples'- you would issue marriage licenses to- and which you would object to.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...
> ...



And nowhere do I say that anyone- Christian or otherwise doesn't have the right to free speech. 

Free speech doesn't mean speech free from criticism.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...
> ...



I disagree- and the courts disagreed also. I understand you don't think it was discrimination. 

Mixed race couples were discriminated in almost the exact same way- they were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as it was to someone of the same race. Virginia actually made your same argument in support of the ban of mixed race marriage.

You are entitled to your opinion. Clearly you have been expressing it here. I think your opinion is wrong.

The difference between my opinion and your opinion is that I didn't start a whole thread whining about America should have perhaps condemned homosexuals- and continued to discriminate against them.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...
> ...



Marriage has legally included same gender couples in the United States for 11 years now. You are the one pretending that same gender marriages are not real marriages. 

Marriage is a term for a societal construct. Procreation is a technical biological term.

Like all of your various inept attempts at analogies- this one falls flat again.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...
> ...



I see you once again having real difficulty with analogies.

Americans do have a right to procreate- or not procreate. This was established in the case regarding the State ban on contraception. 

Does that mean therefore that a man has a right to 'procreate' by rape?

Why do you think so?

Once again- one of many times in this thread- you present a scenario which involves a non-consensual sex act- and compare it to homosexual marriage.

Why do you keep comparing rape to homosexuality?


----------



## Faun (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

When an individual represents the government, they cannot impose their personal religious beliefs on the public. Allowing that is beyond retarded -- which is why you defend Davis' actions while the justice system threw her in jail.

What you are defending would be no different than a religious Jewish state employee denying business licenses to Christians who who want to open a restaurant that serves pork because it violates their personal religious beliefs

If that's the type of government you want, I suggest you move to Iran. That will not be tolerated in the U.S.


----------



## Faun (Sep 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...
> ...


You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 26, 2015)

I'm going to be blunt, because I'm tired of the bullshit.  For years I've listened to Republican's talk about "Freedom" in this country, half the time I think they are right (maybe even more than half the time), but then we get to _any_ religious issue and it goes to complete shit hypocrisy on their side.  I'm tired of the lies, I vote you bastards in because I'm a lot Republican, then you stab American freedom in the back with your crosses.  I'm sick of it, I'm tired of trying to "pretend" you're doing the right thing, I'm tired of trying to defend the Repub party for what is clearly a blatant violation of our countries foundation... 

You Christians better decide if you want to continue to be a part of this /FREE/ country or not, you can either respect that others don't believe in the same crap you do, or you can end up a "minority religion" (like what you did to the Mormon's.)  The bottom line for myself, and a lot of non-Christians, is that we don't particularly care if Christianity continues to exist in America or not.  We don't believe in your religion, why would we care if it stopped being a "majority" religion here?

You folks had better get a grip and realize that even those of us who believe that religion is "good" for people, are getting sick of the games you folks are playing.  Why would I possibly want to "defend" Christianity's continued existence or power in the US when you regularly and intentionally use your religion to discriminate against "non-believers"?  And it's not just LGBT either, it's Mormon's, Islam, Paganism (witchcraft), basically /any/ other religion, plus atheists, agnostics; you attack /all/ of them using /our/ fucking government as a blunt instrument tool to achieve your religious domination.  It baffles me that you folks can look at something from like running a business; if half your fucking clients are saying your food is to damn salty, then to stay in business you put in less fucking salt.  DUH.  When half the country is saying we're okay with SSM, then you fuckheads should prob. go... hmmm maybe we should stop attacking and trying to stop SSM?  You were able to do so about non-arranged marriages, about women becoming equal partners rather than property, and even about divorces; despite your religious dogma.

But no, instead you dipshits let a bunch of asshole leaders destroy what was truly a good idea for a society; corrupting freedom in order to gain a religious control - a theocracy...  This is Christian religion today, and it's not because of anything anyone else said about Christian's, but because of what /Christian's/ have done to fellow American's from the very beginning of this country despite the very CLEAR edict that church and state MUST BE SEPERATE. (And frankly even before America too)  And worse, instead of taking a stand against your religious leaders and saying, 'ya know... this isn't right and this isn't what America was founded on,' you weak minded fools follow your moron leaders into oblivion and proclaim the exact fucking opposite - like they just added that religious separation thing in the founding documents by mistake or some shit.

It becomes more and more clear to me that a good deal of Christians are not mentally capable of separating their religious beliefs from their government position duties.  IF you folks do not learn to do so, in accordance with our constitution, then I will have no qualms backing a movement to have overly religious folks completely barred from government positions (anywhere religion can be used to cause harm to fellow American's freedoms - and that includes President.)  I'm sure you bitches will cry that's an "attack" on your religion, but I submit that your religion becomes more and more apparent as an attack on individual freedom in America.

I'll be one of those saying "good fucking riddance," not because I disagree with the foundation of Christianity, or because I believe Christian's are bad, or even that I don't see the value of American's being Christians - but because the /people/ who follow Christianity are apparently idiots who are unable, or unwilling, to think for themselves - which I must say I find rather ironic since it's usually Repubs accusing Dems of that shit.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 26, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> I'm going to be blunt, because I'm tired of the bullshit.  For years I've listened to Republican's talk about "Freedom" in this country, half the time I think they are right (maybe even more than half the time), but then we get to _any_ religious issue and it goes to complete shit hypocrisy on their side.  I'm tired of the lies, I vote you bastards in because I'm a lot Republican, then you stab American freedom in the back with your crosses.  I'm sick of it, I'm tired of trying to "pretend" you're doing the right thing, I'm tired of trying to defend the Repub party for what is clearly a blatant violation of our countries foundation...
> 
> You Christians better decide if you want to continue to be a part of this /FREE/ country or not, you can either respect that others don't believe in the same crap you do, or you can end up a "minority religion" (like what you did to the Mormon's.)  The bottom line for myself, and a lot of non-Christians, is that we don't particularly care if Christianity continues to exist in America or not.  We don't believe in your religion, why would we care if it stopped being a "majority" religion here?
> 
> ...



Why your post reminds me a great deal of the OP.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 26, 2015)

Yea I realize it does come off that way, but it's the truth and I'm tired of sugar coating it.  I've admitted (I think in this thread even) that I have issues with organized religion (which is where a lot of the above stems from.)  My folks are Christian's, which is why I also understand the "benefits" of religious belief.  However, the bottom line is that I just can't get past the fact that their use of the bible as a tool to circumvent the religious freedoms that are allowed in America.  Basically if they can't stop doing that, then I believe the "harm" they do outweighs the "good."

My folks don't seem to have any trouble separating their religious beliefs from the rights of LGBT's (we have many homosexuals in our family and circle which is why I've tried to just ignore the bullshit from the far right for many years,) but there's a point where I'm just done, my patience runs out.  I do not think I'm alone in being "fed up" with the right's political pushing of their religious beliefs.  If I am "the only one", that's fine too, I use my one vote and follow whatever the rest of the country decides even when I disagree with it because that is what America is about - compromise.  It's not like I'll be on a war path to get rid of Christianity or anything, but if it gets voted out, I'm not going to shed any tears either.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation. 

The truth is, you are a HETEROPHOBE-- You have an irrational fear of straight people! You are also a CHRISTAPHOBE-- A total and complete religious bigot! And when the perverts come out of the woodwork and want to wank off in the public and call it "Love in the Park" you'll be on the side of the perverts because it's something the heteros and Christians oppose.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It has been that for 5k years or as long as western culture has existed. You want to change marriage to include homosexual behavior, which is NOT marriage. The way you want to try and change it is by stubbornly insisting it has already been changed. Pedophiles are denied the right to "marry the person they love."  An incestuous brother is denied the right to marry his sister, aka: the person he loves. A polygamist is denied the right to marry the people they love. Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse. Lot of legitimate examples there of people being denied their right to "marry the person they love!" 

Also... I love Kate Upton!  Would give my left nut to have a go on those wonderful tits! But despite my eternal burning passion and love for Katie, I don't have the right to "marry the person I love" because A) she has no idea who I am, B) She is already in a relationship and C) Her consent is required. We don't CHANGE the definition of words to enable me to marry Kate Upton! I don't have that right!


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 27, 2015)

Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids. 

The brother and sister thing, I personally think it's a little odd in modern times, but it's actually historically a 'normal' practice (usually to protect family wealth/name/land ownership etc.)  Other than physical/medical issues with them making kids together who cares really? 

And no, adulterers end up marrying their lovers all the time... like daily, (hell didn't the "traditional marriage defender" Kim Davis marry a guy she had kids with while married to another man?)  If we look at history, it was common practice for married folks to have lovers and there wasn't much of an issue with it until the Christian's decided that was a "problem" for them and forced everyone else to comply with /their/ religious beliefs.

Similar could be said for polygamists as well.  I think they /should/ be able to marry more than one person, so long as all parties are alright with it who gives a shit; plus /that/ would be respectful to the religious freedom's of [some] Mormon sects.  Of course the reality is that Christian's as a whole have zero interest in _actual_ religious freedom, only enforcing /_their_/ proclaimed religious freedoms.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriage was a union of a man and many women for thousands of years. It's not anymore in most cultures. The "tradition" of marriage changed. Marriage was an institution where the woman was property and could own no property herself for thousands of years. That "tradition" changed. Marriage "traditionally" used to be really old men marrying really young girls. That "tradition" changed. 

Here's how your "tradition" argument went in court:

Samuelson: “Well, I think there’s several reasons. I think tradition is one of the reasons.”
Posner: “How can tradition be a reason for anything? I don’t get that. That’s again the _Loving_ case, right? The tradition of forbidding interracial marriage went back to colonial times. It was two hundred years old by the time _Loving_ came along.”
Samuelson: “I think _Loving_ was a deviation from the common law, rather than a codifying of…”
Judge David Hamilton: “WHAT?”
Posner: “Oh no, no… [laughs, scoffs] ‘It’s the common law’! Look, interracial marriage had been forbidden in the colonies and in many, many states–not just southern, but western–for literally, well, more than 100 years, so why wasn’t that a tradition?”
Samuelson: “It’s distinguishable, it’s a _different_ tradition.”
Posner: [laughs] “Well, of course it’s a different tradition! So in other words, tradition _per se_ is not a grounds for continuing. We’ve been doing this stupid thing for 100 years, 1000 years, we’ll keep doing it, because it’s tradition. You wouldn’t make that argument.”
Samuelson: “Well we’re not making that argument.”
Posner: “Don’t you have to have some empirical, or practical, or common-sense basis for barring these marriages? I mean, what’s the basis? I didn’t get anything out of your brief that sounded like a reason for doing this.”
Samuelson: “Our position is that tradition is based on experience.”
Posner: “That’s _Loving. _Tradition. Hundreds of years no interracial marriage. They would make the same arguments you would make: ‘It’s tradition. We don’t want to _change_ it because we don’t know what would _happen,_ right, _changing tradition, that’s terrible._‘ What if men stopped shaking hands? That’d be the end of the nation, right?”

*Samuelson had no response
*​



> Pedophiles are denied the right to "marry the person they love."  An incestuous brother is denied the right to marry his sister, aka: the person he loves. A polygamist is denied the right to marry the people they love. Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse. Lot of legitimate examples there of people being denied their right to "marry the person they love!"



And if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing polygamist, incestuous or underage marriage...you can do exactly like divorced couples, imprisoned couples, interracial couples and gay couples did. Good luck. You've got a few obstacles to overcome first...like making all of those things LEGAL. 





> Also... I love Kate Upton!  Would give my left nut to have a go on those wonderful tits! But despite my eternal burning passion and love for Katie, I don't have the right to "marry the person I love" because A) she has no idea who I am, B) She is already in a relationship and C) Her consent is required. We don't CHANGE the definition of words to enable me to marry Kate Upton! I don't have that right!



Wow...a phobe that _almost _understands consent. I'm shocked.


----------



## Faun (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Don't be so fucking stupid. Oh, wait, you can't help it. You have the legal right to marry Kate Upton. Of course, she would have to agree to marry you too. Marriage also requires consent from both parties; leaving your point, as always, DOA.

And your idiocy that marriage is only between a man and a woman is also DOA as we are a nation where our Constitution trumps tradition. Being there is no compelling interest to deny two people of the same gender the same right to marriage that heterosexuals have, the Constitution demands they be treated equal under the law. No matter how insane that drives you Neanderthal conservatives.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That 'stubborn insistence' may be because marriage *has* been changed, multiple times.  Moreover, although it may have been in a different thread (I don't remember for certain) I provided you a link to some instances of homosexual marriages in the ancient world.  The vast majority of marriages have been men and women but the idea of homosexual marriage is not new.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.
> 
> The brother and sister thing, I personally think it's a little odd in modern times, but it's actually historically a 'normal' practice (usually to protect family wealth/name/land ownership etc.)  Other than physical/medical issues with them making kids together who cares really?
> 
> ...



Again, what you are giving me is a list of the things you approve of and the things you don't, as if we live in a society where YOU are the king and get to decide what everyone else lives with. Guess what? You're not the king! 

Seems your viewpoint when it comes to morality in society is summed up in one quote: "who gives a shit?" ...Except for, curiously enough, this thing called "consent" which you seem to think is somehow "sacred" and can't be touched. It's funny because "consent" has probably been altered more in US history than any other legal term. 

But since you seem to have so much of a moral attachment to "consent" let me put this to you in a way you may understand... I do not consent to what you are doing to my country! I don't consent to you changing the definition of marriage to include your sexual behavior. I don't consent to you trying to force Christians to accept your immoral behavior against their religious values. And since we live in a democratic society where my opinion and viewpoint is equal to yours, then you're going to respect my opinion.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The truth is, you are both an idiot- and an asshole. As a straight man who has been married for over 20 years and who has a lovely child with my wonderful wife, your claim is just another example of your ignorance- and willingness to attack those who disagree with you. 

I am an atheist indeed- but the vast majority of my friends are Christians. However, none of my Christian friends have your violently anti-homosexual position. I am opposed to individuals who cherry pick their faith in order to discriminate against homosexuals- like the 4 time divorced Ms. Davis. I am opposed to the history of Christian discrimination against homosexuals in the United States- real discrimination- not just being told to treat everyone equally. But other than that there is great wisdom to be found in the Bible, which is one of the reasons I know that Ms. Davis violates her own faith by refusing to obey the judges orders. 

And what makes you think that the perverts haven't come out of the woodwork? There are children being molested, women being raped, men masturbating in public- and all of that happened before and after Obergefell with no relation to it. 

If I saw a man masturbating in public, I would call the police. I have no problem with public nudity, but public displays of sex are illegal here, and I would generally report them also (unless I stumbled across them in a semi-private area as I have a few times with hetero couples).

The truth is that this entire thread is just your anti-homosexual rant- your call for America to stop the homosexuals before they force you to have sex with them in public. Such is your paranoia. Such is your anger that homosexuals can now get legally married.

And that is all your problem.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are just in denial. Marriage has changed. Marriage has changed frequently. You just want to deny that the change has happened. 

Why?

From your OP it appears to be that homosexuals make you really, really uncomfortable- since you believe homosexuals will eventually want to force you to have non-consensual sex in public.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.
> ...



Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up.  He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some.  Sure, he also said what his own opinions are.  So what?  That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact.  Guess what?  You're not the king, either.

You did not consent to same sex marriage, but it's still the law that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.  There are always some people who disagree with laws and court rulings; there is no issue on which everyone will agree.  Of course, that is a different sort of consent, as you well know.  Well, I assume you do.  It can sometimes be hard to tell just what you do and don't understand about consent.

I'm also pretty sure that EverCurious isn't doing much to the country, didn't change the definition of marriage, and I have no idea what his/her sexual behaviors might be.  I don't see EverCurious trying to force Christians to accept any opinion.  You like to project everything you see as wrong onto whatever poster you happen to be arguing with as though they are personally responsible for the ills you see in the country.  Perhaps you find an us/them dynamic the only way to view the world? 

Yes, your opinion can be said to be equal as far as each of you having one vote.  That doesn't mean that each person's opinion is somehow codified into law or that each person's opinion will have equal weight in society or that anyone needs to respect your opinion (or vice versa).

You are so back and forth in the things you say.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes.

And clearly you just will never understand why it is legitimate for states to have some restrictions on marriage, but that some restrictions on marriage may be unconstitutional.

Read the Loving v. Virginia decision for that discussion. I mean if you are interested in more than just spouting off the same old, same old claims of yours- once again comparing homosexual couples to a pedophile and his 4 year old victim.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You actually mentioned the only word that is essential there- a word with a meaning that seems to escape your understanding.

Consent.

If Kate Upton agreed to marry you after you chopped off your left nut- then nothing would prevent you two from marrying.

If Kate Upton didn't agree to marry you, your right to marriage and her right to marriage are still intact- you can still marry another adult- who is willing to consent to marrying you.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.
> ...



LOL- yet here you are in this thread telling us marriage between two men doesn't exist- as if we live in a society where YOU are the king and get to decide what everyone else lives with. Guess what? You're not the king.

Americans have the right to marriage- regardless of the gender of their spouse .You don't get to be king and tell us which legal marriages are not marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.
> ...



Oh I get that you do not 'consent' but luckily you have the right to express your opinion, you can vote, and you can even lie about how marriage has been changed to include a sexual behavior.

You can express your opinion, you can use your vote all to advocate for discrimination against homosexuals. 

But while you have the right of free speech- that doesn't mean anyone has to respect any bigoted thing you say. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

This entire thread has just been your rant against homosexuals- your paranoia about homosexuals, and some really oddly sexual fears. 

No- I don't think anyone respects your opinion in this thread. No need to respect a cry for bigotry.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, what you are reading are not comparisons between homosexuality and other things, there is nothing to compare homosexuality to. The analogies are to show you the absurdity of your position when it comes to legitimizing homosexuality through gay marriage.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old *consents* to sex with an adult, is that the same as *forcible* rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?

So now, let's jump ahead 10-12 years and discuss "Joe" a man who is NOT a pedophile but a hebephile. That is someone similar to a pedophile but they are attracted to adolescents. So now, Joe is in a relationship with a 13 year-old girl who is totally cool with their relationship and views Joe as the love of her life, and Joe feels the same about her.  He is petitioning the court for the right to "marry the person he loves" without discriminating against him. Please explain to me how the very same exact arguments you've made for "gay marriage" don't apply to Joe? AND... keep in mind, Joe's girl fully *consents* to their relationship.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.



I never claimed to be king. I don't go around expecting you to live by my wishes or standards. I am perfectly fine with leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states and the people to decide for themselves, or to remove government from the marriage business entirely because I don't think they belong there and they certainly don't belong there at the federal level. 

History... You showing me speculation on archaeological discoveries of homosexuality in ancient cultures is not proof of other civilizations acknowledging gay marriage. What we define as marriage has NEVER been between same genders... until NOW. You've offered nothing to prove otherwise... some smart ass proved it was between same genders in 2001, but that is considered part of "NOW." Before 2001, all the way back to where "marriage" was first used to define a human relationship, it has meant the union of male and female and nothing else. All kinds of parameters have existed within that definition, that doesn't change what it is. 

Adulterers certainly CAN NOT marry their mistresses unless they want to be charged with bigamy. They can certainly get a divorce and marry the person that was their mistress... is that what he meant? That would make his mistress his wife and not his mistress anymore. Words and their definitions certainly seem to be a challenge for you guys.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.
> ...



EverCurious never claimed to be king either.  You are the one who brought that up, but when it's turned back on you, suddenly you want to cry foul?

You don't expect me to live by your wishes or standards....except when it comes to the definition of marriage, apparently.

I was clearly talking about EverCurious's mentions of history.  If you want to bring up the link I gave earlier, however, it may not be proof of same sex marriage in ancient cultures, but it is evidence.  That you want to dismiss such evidence out of hand, likely because it goes against your repeated statements that marriage has only ever meant between a man and woman (or man and women, or men and woman, or men and women), is your own issue.

I think it's extremely likely EverCurious meant that adulterers can marry their mistresses once both parties are single.  That seems obvious.  It was a response to this statement by you, "Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse.".  They have every right to marry the person they are having an affair with once they dissolve their current marriages.  As you said, words and their definitions seem to be a challenge for you.  

Why is it that when you give your opinion on what society should do, what the law should say, what the definition of words are, it is fine, but when someone else gives their opinions, they are trying to be king and force their views on others?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yet your analogies are always the same-  homosexuals therefore 'pedophiles'. Homosexuals therefore public masturbation

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children. 

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent.  A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head.  But they are different. 

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent. 

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states. 

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sure- I doubt any explanation will make any headway with you- but sure.

Let us use real life examples:
Jim and John were in love with each other, were both of an age that they could give legal consent to have sex or marry, were both of sound mind so that they could provide legal consent. But the law said that they could not marry- so they both petition the court for their rights to marry each other.  

Joe and Peggy were in 'love' with each other, Joe was of legal age, but Peggy is only 13 years old, and in that state she is too young to provide consent to either sex or marriage. Joe appeals the court for permission to marry Peggy, arguing that he not being allowed to marry the person he loves is discriminatory and violates his Constitutional rights.

The court rejects his claim- explaining to him that in a marriage both parties must consent to the marriage, and that Peggy is unable to provide legal consent.   And then proceeds to notify the authorities to have Joe investigated for possible Statutory rape or child molestation, since sex between them is illegal. 

Now the ridiculous thing about this whole scenario is that it is possible for Joe to legally marry Peggy in at least one state, I believe it requires both her parents permission(they can provide consent for her) and the courts approval. 

Laws regarding the age of consent for both sex and marriage have varied tremendously over the years- generally in the last 100 years- as America has grown more liberal- the age of consent has risen.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.
> ...



And I am perfectly consent with leaving the issue of 'gay marriage' where it is now.

You are the one who has started an entire thread because you are so upset about legal marriage between homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

I think its time to repost the original Post again- in all of its glory

_I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

*I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it*. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
_
*We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.*
_
One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?
_
_When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!_
_
What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal._


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Why are you spending so much time trying to explain why EverCurious was wrong? An adulterer cannot marry his mistress. He can marry the person who was once his mistress, after he divorces his wife and providing his mistress has divorced any husband she may have, but once she marries him, she is no longer (by definition) his mistress. So he simply cannot marry his mistress. That is what seems obvious to me. 

Now the question I asked is... why doesn't he "have every right to marry" his mistress while still married to his wife?  It's not harming gay or traditional marriage... why can't we make that happen?  And the other things I've mentioned, why can't those also be made to happen? Come on man, we have people out there being denied their "every right" to marry the person they love.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.*

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that. 

*You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.* 

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... *EVER.* 

Now let's get back to my example. Why can't Joe's 13-year-old girlfriend consent to sex or marriage? Why do you insist on calling Joe's love-making to the person he loves "rape" instead? She consents and he consents... she understands what sex is and what consent means. She knows what marriage is, she hasn't lived under a rock all her life. So why can she not freely give her own consent?  Why is it YOUR business? How does it harm YOU? Does Joe _not_ have the same 14th Amendment rights? Would it be different if Joe were a homosexual? Could he_ "have every right to marry the person he loves"_ then? 

*None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.*

How about you stop being all stiff-butted and preaching to me what we know is right and wrong and explain how the hell Joe's rights are less important or why Joe's girlfriend can't give legal consent? So far, you've come just shy of breaking out the hymnals to explain how this is considered some sort of a moral abomination in your religious beliefs but you're not explaining how Joe's Constitutional *RIGHT* to marry the person he loves can be denied.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't have a problem with polygamy being legal.  However, in the case of an adulterer and his mistress, I doubt the adulterer's wife or husband would consent to the mistress joining the marriage.  A polygamous marriage would require all parties agreeing to the terms.

Why can't he have marriages to separate women?  Maybe some sort of specific contract could be written up to cover it, but there are certain parts of marriage which would come into conflict in such a situation.  The question of who has power of attorney in medical crises would be an example.

Why do you spend so much time spouting your opinions, telling us what is or is not true of marriage, then complain that someone else is acting like a king when they do the same?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Was the concept of consent unchangeable before the federal same sex marriage ruling?  If not, why is it suddenly so relevant?

You haven't brought up pedophiles marrying children?



Boss said:


> Well I thought I understood the concept of "marriage" but apparently I was wrong. So why is "consent" any different?
> 
> And how were gay people not being given equal rights? Marriage licenses are not issued on the basis of whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. IF that were what was happening, I could see your argument, but that's not what is happening. They aren't allowed to do something that IS NOT marriage and call that marriage. *The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.*



As far as why 13 year olds cannot consent, it is a question of emotional and intellectual maturity.  Yes, the age of consent is something that changes with time and place.  Yes, it can and probably will continue to change in the future.  Yes, picking a particular age of consent is a very inexact system; some people mature more quickly than others.  None of that was untrue before Obergefel.  None of that is more or less true since Obergefel.  You keep harping on consent as though same sex marriage will somehow inevitably lead to lowering of consent laws.  Why?  Did the age of consent lower after marriage moved from polygamy to monogamy?  Did age of consent lower when marriage moved away from immediate family members?  Did age of consent lower when arranged marriages without input from the couple involved became taboo?  Did age of consent lower when interracial marriage bans were struck down?  Why does the change of gender, having nothing to do with consent, suddenly require consent laws to change?


----------



## Faun (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are fucking deranged.

Adolescents can't legally consent to sex with adults.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

And no one is "falsely" accusing you of talking about pedophiles raping children -- you did indeed broach the subject ...

_They HAVE equal access to marry... MARRIAGE is the union of a man and woman! It's nothing else! It can't BE anything else! It's not about a sexual preference or behavior, it's what it is... the union of a man and woman in matrimony.* What gays are denied it the right to call something "marriage" that doesn't fit the definition. We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.*_​


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What you are speaking about would be considered 'bigamy'- and as to why a man cannot marry his mistress is because he is already in a contract with another woman- the two of them had previously consented to marry each other. 

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults- you ask why this man cannot have an additional contract with another woman- because it violate the contract between himself and the first woman.

Not only that, it is very easy for States to provide examples of men who have abandoned their first wives for their mistresses to demonstrate the harm that such a bigamous relationship harms the first wife.

I think that you are so obsessed about two men being able to marry each other that you are blinding yourself.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Clearly you do. You keep on bringing up situations- sex and marriage which require sex- and providing examples of non-consensual sex and 'marriage'. 

If by 'moral concepts' if you cannot see any 'moral' difference between two adult men having a consensual sexual relationship- and a man raping a woman- then I don't think it is 'seculars' that want to destroy your morals- I have concerns about what morals you have.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why yes you have. Almost from the start.  Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child.  You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Why did you decide to lie and say  _I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children   ?_

_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I went to great lengths to answer you- that 13 year old girl can no more provide consent to marriage than a 4 year old girl can.

Again- why the hell do you not understand what 'consent' means?

A man slips a ruffie to a woman and has sex with her while she is unconscious- that is rape- because she could not consent to sex.
A man has sex with a 13 year old girl- and it is RAPE- just as a man having sex with a 4 year old girl is RAPE- because neither can provide consent.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

You keep on whining about morals and you don't understand why a 13 year old cannot provide consent?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 27, 2015)

I have actually been trying to have a conversation with Boss but his dialogue has devolved back to his deranged OP. 

He is lying about what he has said in the this thread.
He repeatedly equates homosexuals to pedophiles.
And he does not understand what 'consent' is- which should be a concern for any person who he is around. 

This entire thread is his butthurt rant attacking homosexuals- and a cry for America to return to the good old days of driving homosexuals back to the closet.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 28, 2015)

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.)  Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e.  First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union.  The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage.  I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well. 

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories.  One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"  

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man?  "ICK!! BURN THEM!!"  It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more.  If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock.  If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in?  Why did he leave it in?  Free will.  Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will. 

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here.  This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race.  Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to  have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet.  If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"?  So we could war with each other over who's god is better??  I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity.  We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of  world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.)  I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds?  How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings?  How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"?  Where does it stop?


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I went to great lengths to answer you- that 13 year old girl can no more provide consent to marriage than a 4 year old girl can.



But you didn't explain anything other than your moral hang-up regarding maturity which you go on to admit is arbitrary and can't be measured accurately by age. I'm sorry but "we can't allow it because it's not appropriate" isn't a very good answer. A lot of people feel that way about homosexual marriage. You're not explaining why you get to pick and choose what is appropriate but others have to sit down and shut up. Are we all to defer to your moral judgement now?


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment. 

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> What you are speaking about would be considered 'bigamy'- and as to why a man cannot marry his mistress is because he is already in a contract with another woman- the two of them had previously consented to marry each other.



So what? What the hell IS bigamy? Isn't it like "sodomy" ...something the bible-thumpers think is wrong but really doesn't hurt anyone else?  ...You can't shoot your moral high horse in the head then jump back on him!  This is almost hilarious if it weren't so serious. 

On one hand, you argue that religious morals and values are meaningless and shouldn't be allowed to restrict homosexuals from trashing the institution of marriage and making a mockery of religious sanctity... you're cool with that.... BUT... on the other hand, you want to get all tight-butted and preach to me about what is _obvious to everyone_ as immoral.  Is your brain disconnected? Did someone name you the Pope? Where, all of a sudden, did you obtain the right to tell me what is or isn't moral or restrict my rights on that basis?


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.)  Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e.  First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.
> 
> On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union.  The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage.  I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.
> 
> ...



Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected. 

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples. 

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached. 

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue. 

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.)  Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e.  First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.
> ...



That sounds great, until one realizes you've also said you are waiting for a law to be pushed allowing random gay men to put their penis in your mouth; that gays will not be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong; that same sex marriage will lead to legal pedophilia.  You talk about your gay friends, how same sex marriage should be respected, in the same thread you denigrate gays and say that marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex.  Your statements on this subject fluctuate wildly.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.)  Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e.  First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.
> ...



The "problem" has been solved. Anti gay bigots tried to keep non familial consenting adult gays from marrying each other. They lost and non familial consenting adult gays can marry each other...exactly like non familial consenting adult heterosexuals. That is the ONLY valid comparison. 

The fight is over, the bigots lost. There is no "give" left. Nothing is going to be reversed.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Boss is fucking deranged. Boss sees no difference between two adult men engaging in consentual sex  and a pedophile raping a young child.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.)  Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e.  First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.
> ...


Reasonable people already approached the problem and resolved it. Your butthurt over the matter doesn't actually factor into the equation as you think it does. The problem is solved.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I went to great lengths to answer you- that 13 year old girl can no more provide consent to marriage than a 4 year old girl can.
> ...



Your lack of comprehension- and honesty- and morality- is not my problem.

If you cannot understand why a 4 year or a 13 year old cannot provide consent to sex or marriage- then you have bigger issues than just your disapproval of homosexuals marrying.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I am glad to keep repeating your exact lie:

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying:   _I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children  _

Here is you bringing up pedophiles marrying children

_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer_


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > What you are speaking about would be considered 'bigamy'- and as to why a man cannot marry his mistress is because he is already in a contract with another woman- the two of them had previously consented to marry each other.
> ...



I explained why. Your lack of comprehension, honesty or morals is not my problem.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The mic didn't even bounce when you dropped it.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



You don't know what I'm talking about because you're not reading what I'm talking about with an open mind. You've decided, like all other gay marriage fanatics, that I am a bigoted homophobe and so nothing I can post can be anything other than bigoted homophobia. 

All I've done is try to illustrate to you how it's a really stupid idea to put government and courts in charge of deciding what we can call marriage and also demanding they make their orders without respect to any religious morality. It's a really dumb idea to change the meaning of words so you can accommodate your sexual proclivity of choice. My point has been that this will ultimately lead to things you're very uncomfortable with but you've set the course.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Still not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds.  Can you not find that quote?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Here is your lie- and I quote you saying: _I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children _

_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._ Of course, NONE of those examples are me condoning or advocating pedophilia. I am simply asking you a question you don't want to answer honestly. I am presenting a comparative analogy which you can't refute so you've decided to morph it into something you can ridicule. And you will note... not a single word from me about "4-year-olds" in ANY comment.

Let's be clear, Boss doesn't think pedophiles deserve to marry their victims, Boss would support very cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles. IF Boss were in charge, you would be outraged at his inhumane treatment of pedophiles and you would be protesting the human rights violations implemented by Boss to punish pedophiles. I have ZERO tolerance when it comes to pedophiles. But then... I also have a problem with homosexual marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



I know that a lot of you think this. You were all cheering and celebrating the SCOTUS ruling and you're full of hubris and confidence that you've won this war and it's now just a matter of dispatching a few 'bigots' like Kim Davis and you're set... but I don't think so. In fact, I think your real problems just began.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



How could anyone come to that conclusion?

_*I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.* 

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... 

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... 

 it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles.////

. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal._

How could anyone think you are a bigoted homophobe from those remarks? 

How could anyone not come to that conclusion.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*Still... * not a single word about 4-year-olds or advocating of adults having sex with 4-year-olds.  Can you not find that quote?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Despite all evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that the side who wants equal rights for Americans who happen to be gay have any NEW problems. Just the same old bigotry- just now less of it.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Hey, when I say that giving an alcoholic a drink isn't a good idea, it doesn't mean I dislike alcoholics or I'm advocating prohibition. I can understand the alchy getting pissed and offended but that's to be expected. Same deal here.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And here is what you actually said- and then lied about saying it- and you still don't have the stones to admit you just lied when you said it:

_I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children _

_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer
_


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I don't know about "sides" since I don't have a "side" ...I just want to see the issue resolved in a way that respects what everyone believes. You want the issue resolved in a way that pleases you but tells everyone else to fuck off. And that is the difference between you and I. 

We already had "equal rights" and this has never been about equal anything.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And you can keep flooding the board with it day and night, make it bold, make it big, make it red and underline it... you've still not posted a single word from me about adults having sex with 4-year-olds. The only one who has brought that up in this thread was you. So basically, you are proving how you misinterpret context and then, can't be honest about it.  So you keep right on doing that.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Here is your OP- edited to replace references to homosexuals for a different group. Would anyone find this post an attack on Jews?


I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet Jewish friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn Judaism than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their Jewishness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "antisemite" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some Jewish lobby to push for a law which allows Jewish men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are an anti-Semitic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your religion and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two Jews kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We Jewish people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for Jews to publicly molest Christians without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept Jews and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to Israel or somewhere Judaism is normal.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes- I can keep pointing out your lie over and over again. As long as you continue to deny your bald faced lie- I am willing to continue to point it out. Because it points to your lack of honesty in this thread- from the OP on. 

And here is what you actually said- and then lied about saying it- and you still don't have the stones to admit you just lied when you said it:

_I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children _

_Post #50_
_We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to._

_Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?_

_Post #143_
_The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

_Post #197_
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199_
_All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
_After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles._

_Post #244_
_Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,_

_post #246_
_Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc_

_Post #421_
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens..._
_Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer_


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Wow... How intellectually dishonest and offensive can you get, Syriusly? 

Seriously?


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 28, 2015)

Homosexuality is bad for society as a whole
Homosexuals can not have children
Homosexuals are psychologically imbalanced
God created a MAN and a WOMAN for family purposes and with differing personalities and skill sets.
Anything that deviates from that is "sin born" and needs to be repented and turned from in the eyes of God.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



My 'side' is happens to be the side that wants equal rights for gay couples- and happens to be the side that the majority of Americans support. 

You were very clear from your OP that you believe America should tell homosexuals to fuck off. Nothing about resolving the issue in a way that please everyone.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wow... How intellectually dishonest and offensive can you get, Syriusly?
> 
> Seriously?



What is intellectually dishonest about pointing out your lie over and over?

And here is what you actually said- and then lied about saying it- and you still don't have the stones to admit you just lied when you said it:

_I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children _

_Post #50_
_We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to._

_Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?_

_Post #143_
_The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

_Post #197_
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199_
_All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
_After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles._

_Post #244_
_Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,_

_post #246_
_Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc_

_Post #421_
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens..._
_Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer_


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



LMAo... Okay, so now you are comparing gay homosexuals to persecuted Jews?


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 28, 2015)

Gays can marry,  The law says so, so what?  It's not normal natural or God honoring and every one (deep down) knows it.
Also, it enhances the spread of AIDS.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Homosexuality is bad for society as a whole
> Homosexuals can not have children
> Homosexuals are psychologically imbalanced
> God created a MAN and a WOMAN for family purposes and with differing personalities and skill sets.
> Anything that deviates from that is "sin born" and needs to be repented and turned from in the eyes of God.



How is homosexuality bad for societ?
Homosexuals do have children.
There is no evidence that homosexuals are 'imbalanced'
There is no evidence that god created anything.
Why do you expect that every atheist, buddhist and hindu should repent and believe what you believe?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



All it took was changing the references from homosexuals to jews.

And then the offensiveness of your OP becomes less deniable- more clearly the bigotry that it is.


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 28, 2015)

Jews are God's chosen people
Homosexuality is an abomination to God.

what is the comparison?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Gays can marry,  The law says so, so what?  It's not normal natural or God honoring and every one (deep down) knows it.
> Also, it enhances the spread of AIDS.



I don't believe in your god- nor do I care what you think is normal- being left handed is not normal.

IF marriage does anything, it encourages monogamy- which hopefully will reduce the spread of Aids. 

However, even beyond that- tell me why you think the marriage of two lesbians 'enhances the spread of Aids'?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Jews are God's chosen people
> Homosexuality is an abomination to God.
> 
> what is the comparison?



Bigotry is bigotry. 

If it is an attack on Jews to say what the OP said- then it is just as much an attack on homosexuals when it is said about them.


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Gays can marry,  The law says so, so what?  It's not normal natural or God honoring and every one (deep down) knows it.
> ...


 
AIDS?  maybe not Lesbian's but - God intended women to be a helpmeet for man. (marriage)
does it seem "natural" to you for a woman to be with a woman?
Do you think it is in the best interest of a child to be raised by 2 women?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sorry, this post is bullshit.  You've done far more than argue government should get out of the marriage business.  You've argued that gays will never be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong.  You've argued that same sex marriage is based on a sexual proclivity but opposite sex marriage is not.  You've argued that gays are not looking for equality and will never be satisfied with whatever treatment they get under the law.  You've argued that since marriage is now based on sexual proclivities (according to you) consent laws are going to be changed or done away with.  You argued in the OP that the 'gay lobby' will push for laws to allow gays to orally or anally rape random people on the streets!  How is that illustrating anything about the courts being involved in marriage?

If people think you are bigoted against homosexuals it is because you have made multiple statements which seem to denigrate or disparage gays.  They have been quoted on more than one occasion.  
Let's look at some again.


Boss said:


> From a psychological perspective, they can never feel accepted because they know homosexuality is wrong. It simply doesn't matter how much effort is made to accept them, they can't accept themselves.





Boss said:


> Seems to me, we've done ALL those things and still, we're being called bigots and homophobes. Unless we totally accept your behavior and restructure society so that gay people are treated superior to anyone else, you're not going to be happy. I don't even know if that would make you happy... I think you can't BE happy. You know what you are doing is wrong and you need validation... constantly... never-ending. Well, I am tired of placating you and pandering to your needs. Grow the fuck up and accept that some people don't approve of your sexual deviant behavior.





Boss said:


> No, what you are witnessing is otherwise tolerant and rational people becoming frustrated because they can't ever seem to do enough for gays. You keep pushing and pushing for something you're never going to have...
> 
> You see, what you really want is to be accepted as normal... but you're not normal, are you? You realize what you do is wrong and abnormal for human beings and you seek to have your abnormal behavior accepted and legitimized... but you know that it never will be. No amount of tolerance will ever suffice, you'll keep on pushing until society pushes back, and they will.





Boss said:


> Sorry, but I am a little concerned. Because, frankly... I don't see the difference between a person who prefers sex with same gender partners and a person who prefers sex with anything else.



Then there are the many times you've compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, and of course the OP where you talk about how much easier it would have been to continue to be intolerant of gays, how gays are going to push for laws allowing them to orally and anally rape strangers on the street.....do you see a trend here, a tone to many of your posts?

Sure, some of your posts seem reasonable.  Sometimes you come off as perfectly tolerant of people's lifestyle choices.  I'm not sure why you'd expect people to accept those posts and ignore the ones that indicate the opposite.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I do get tired of people like yourself bringing up AID's to attack gay marriage- completely ignoring that 50% of gay couples have a lower likelihood of contracting AID's than hetero couples. 

I really don't give a damn what 'god' created women for- biologically women were 'created' in order to get pregnant and have children- which lesbians can do just fine. Men were 'created' to impregnate women- and they can do so just fine. Nature doesn't care how genes are passed down- or even if genes are passed down.

And as for 'natural'- I heard that argument too many times by idiots who told it is not natural for a white man to be with a black woman. The question is- does it harm anyone if a woman is with another woman? I don't think so. 

As far as raising a child- I am a father- in the course of being a parent/brother/uncle etc I have observed many, many parents in actions and have come to the conclusion that kids need GOOD parents more than they need a specific type of parent. I know too many great kids raised by single moms to believe that a child automatically will suffer harm if he or she doesn't have a dad in his or her life. Two mom's would provide more economic stability than a single mom- AND that is good for kids- economic insecurity makes kids scared. 

Let me put it another way- almost every child available for adoption in the United States has gotten there because in one way or another his mother and father has abandoned him-  why would you then assume that a mother and father are automatically superior to any two mom's who decide to become parents intentionally?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Your god is not my god.

Whether something is natural depends on how you are defining that word.  

If two women love and support a child, emotionally and financially, I think that is in a child's best interests.


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
There is only ONE GOD.  We don't get to pick and choose


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I don't believe that there is any god. 

However, Jews believe that there is one God- and Jesus Christ is not his Messiah- they get to pick and choose.
Muslims believe there is only one God- and Jesus is a prophet- not a savior.
Hindu's believe in many gods- to them your god is nothing more than your imagination- or maybe an aspect of Shiva(?)

However, in the United States, we do not base our laws, including marriage laws, on one or all of many Christians interpretations of what the law should be.


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


 
we don't, yet, the reality is, there is One God


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I really care if that is what you believe. 

I only care if you insist that others act according to your belief in that God.


----------



## The Great Goose (Sep 28, 2015)

Gay men are despised.

Now I'd understand if the OP was bitching about lesbians. They are brutes.

But suggesting that gay men have it great is jyst ridiculous.


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
I want others to love God and put their faith in him.
It is not my place to insist.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



That's certainly your belief. But realize that you're offering us your subjective faith as objective truth. And they aren't the same thing.

Nor can you establish your beliefs factually. Your argument is circular. With your evidence and your conclusion being the exact same thing. 

This lacks much persuasive power to those who don't already think as you do.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Let's go back to what I said in the beginning.  Homosexuals are not going to be content with being allowed to marry. This "movement" you are a part of, is not going to stop at marriage laws. This is about forcing society to accept homosexual behavior. This is impossible due to the fact that most of us are moral people who fundamentally disagree with homosexual behavior. Our religions teach that it is wrong, our science teaches it is a deviant behavior. What we are doing is enabling the behavior to continue under the premise this is about some kind of right. We've changed the meaning of marriage to now include this behavior. 

Homosexuals seek acceptance in society. That is what will make them content and happy and until that happens, they will continue to demand more and more in order to 'legitimize' themselves and their behavior.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality. Everything else you say is entirely your paranoia about homosexuals which was evident in the actual language of your hyperbolic OP.

From your quotes, it appears you will not be content until homosexuals are legally discriminated against again. 

Selected quotes from your OP again

_*I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.* 

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... 

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... 

it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles.////

. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal._


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Our science teaches that being left handed is a 'deviant behavior'- and indeed that for instance- worshipping in a synagogue is a 'deviant' behavior- since 'deviant' when it comes to science merely means deviates from the mean. 

So are you next going to start attacking other 'deviant' communities- should we left handers start looking over our shoulders- should Jews start boarding up the synogogues?


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I don't believe that there is any god.



This tells us all we need to know about you.  You're an idiot who believes in fantasies...  like universes that pop into existence from nothing.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't know who that 'us' is that you refer to- I haven't seen anything to indicate you are a 'moral' person from your first post where you posited that homosexuals were going to be trying to force straight men to have sex with them.

But 'most of us' just want Americans who are homosexuals to be treated equally.

_The Post-ABC poll finds 61 percent of Americans support allowing gays to marry and 35 percent are opposed. Support is up only slightly from last year but is a reversal from public sentiment a decade ago, when opponents outnumbered supporters 58 percent to 39 percent._

_Poll: Gay-marriage support at record high
_
And most Americans find homosexuality morally acceptable

"_Do you personally believe gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable or morally wrong? 
_
2013- 59% yes, 37% no, 4% undecided. 

"We" disagree with your bigotry.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe that there is any god.
> ...



LOL.

And what pray tell do you believe in? 

Surely you can come up with as creative a story for your own beliefs as you have made for me.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.



No... they had legal equality. There is nowhere in the country where homosexuals did not have the same access, rights or affording of the same opportunities as heterosexuals. They couldn't marry same-gender but no one could marry same-gender, that isn't marriage and hasn't been marriage for more than 5k years it has existed. 

You've demanded that something be changed to include homosexual relationships. Then demanded the thing you changed to be codified into law, against the will of the people. And I will tell you, as sure as the sun rose today, this will not stand.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh, I believe in science, physics and logic, which all indicate a Creator.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> In fact, I think your real problems just began



Examples?


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.
> ...



Your exact same argument was used to deny interracial couples. It eventually lost too.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss, you realize that the only thing you can do is amend the Constitution. Do you have any idea how that's done?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm part of a movement now?  I didn't even know.

Here you are again, sounding anti-homosexual.  When you say, "most of us are moral people who fundamentally disagree with homosexual behavior" you certainly seem to be saying homosexuality is immoral.  

As Syriusly pointed out, being deviant is not wrong or immoral.  Many things are deviant.  Heroism is deviant behavior.  Giving up organs for transplant is deviant behavior.  Hell, remaining married for a lifetime might be considered deviant behavior based on all the times I've heard stats about divorce rates.  And the USSC has already ruled that the right to privacy includes who consenting adults choose to have sex with out of the public eye.  We've already gone over the fact that if opposite sex marriage is not about sexual behavior because homosexuals can enter into such a marriage, the same must be true in reverse; same sex marriage is not about sexual behavior because heterosexuals can enter into such a marriage.

The meaning of marriage was changed to include same gender marriage.  Homosexual or heterosexual sex need not enter into it and is not part of the definition.

Of course homosexuals seek acceptance in society.  Find any group of people that is not accepted and they will likely try to gain that acceptance; humans are social creatures in general.  Guess what?  They are gaining that acceptance.  Homosexuality is far more accepted today than it was a few decades ago.  The Obergefel ruling may be an outgrowth of that acceptance, so what?  You may have a problem with homosexuality (you deny it but continue to talk about homosexuality as wrong and immoral) but the country as a whole is clearly moving towards being accepting.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



So you believe.  Billions disagree with you.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you in your own words- you are an idiot who believes in fantasies...like creators that pop into existence from nothing.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.
> ...



And we go around full circle again- with  you disagreeing with the courts, and saying what you personally believe is fact.

And how appropriate that you echo the very same argument made by the State of Virginia when it argued why its ban on mixed race marriage was not discriminatory


_*Mr. McIlwaine:* That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally._


Gay couples were as equal as the Lovings were in 1960. Virginia argued that blacks had the same access to marry as whites- as long as blacks married blacks and whites married whites.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.
> ...



Well since you have been wrong on virtually every point so far, your prediction gives me great comfort.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, I think your real problems just began
> ...



Boss is going to hold his breath and stamp his feet even harder!


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



That was my point about my post where I swapped out "Jew" for homosexual.

His diatribe would be right at home at Stormfront talking about the evils of Jews.

Here is the thing- Obergefell actually was riding behind the crest of public approval- when the court declared that the Lovings had a right to marry, they were 20 years ahead of public approval.

If this was 1965- would Boss be arguing about the evils of the mixed race agenda forcing its immoral lifestyles on American people. There were people making those same arguments then


----------



## Mertex (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> *I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.* Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...



Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic........and have a distorted view of reality....and FYI, you and a bunch of homophobes *are* condemning homosexuality.  And, your little brag about bending over backwards to try and please them is a whole lot of rubbish....you and the rest have never accepted them much less bent over backward to please them.  And here's a news flash for you.....  "*the country has allowed it"*.  In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court......who wields a whole lot more authority than your puny little self. 

If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one.  But, your little rant isn't going to change anything....they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Fortunately for America, what you _think_ has no bearing on reality.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> You've decided, like all other gay marriage fanatics, that I am a bigoted homophobe and so nothing I can post can be anything other than bigoted homophobia.


Gee, wonder where anyone could have gotten that idea?? 

oh ... wait .........

Boss says, _[/b]"Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you!"[/b]_​


..... THAT'S where.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Gays can marry,  The law says so, so what?  It's not normal natural or God honoring and every one (deep down) knows it.


Do you also notice the most bigoted folks here are also among the most religious? By the way, what does any of your thoughts on gays have to do with U.S. law? When did we begin writing laws based on the Bible?



Bonzi said:


> Also, it enhances the spread of AIDS.


Umm, hate to kick your soap box out from under you ... buuuut ........ married gay couples are far less likely to spread HIV.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Jews are God's chosen people
> Homosexuality is an abomination to God.


Not since the New Testament.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.



Have you been arguing to get the gov out of the "marriage business" for your whole life, or only /now/ that the rules of the game are changing about your "ball"? 

Marriage licenses have been issued since the middle ages and oft tied with gov, interestingly they were "invented" specifically to permit marriages that would otherwise be "illegal/invalid" for various reasons; because the waiting period wasn't up, because the "designated" dowry wasn't paid, or whatever.  It was a way for a couple, or their parents, to circumvent the established traditional church "formality" rules about marriage (and/or to avoid the "banns of marriage" proclamation as a public matter.)

Up until the 1600's marriage was a private matter; basically if a couple told the church or (gov) court that they were married that was that.  However, the church(s) were finding issues they didn't like; Catholic's marrying non-Catholics, divorce and/or second marriages, or even because the marriage didn't take place at the prescribed times and other stuff like that so /they/ pushed for a more formal "legitimate" form of marriage.  In the mid 1700's the Church of England declared that marriages were basically a gov. issue and marriage licenses started to get /really/ entangled with gov. (Some stupid shit in there too, like in the early 1800's there was a combo gov/church "edict" that marriages performed between 6pm and 8am were invalid lol)

Now of course, America didn't follow the Church of England's lead there, specifically noted freedom of religion and such in our founding documents.  So in America, we didn't require the "banns" to make a marriage "official" as declared by the European religions (Roman Catholics, Church of England, etc.) so we kind of followed our own rules here.  As far back as the early 1600's marriages licenses were being issued in the "new world" so in 1776 we American's continued our "tradition" of defining our own rules about marriage.  From the get-go we'd put it into states hands; like in most states we recognized "common law" marriages but NC and Tenn /never/ recognized them as legal, or a number of states required a blood test while a bunch didn't, etc.  So not only did America make it's own rules about what constituted a "legal" marriage, the individual states did as well.

This poses a problem if one is to argue "tradition" as some kind of across the board standard, because the truth is that there /wasn't/ any across the board standard for the country; we have made our own beliefs and rules from the beginning of this country.  While one can reasonably argue that it should just be left up to the states (and only run into the higher power of the us constitution,) one cannot "reasonably" argue that there is an "over reaching" belief across the board that "marriage is between one man and one woman" because there /are/ Christian churches all over this country who (even openly) support SSM.  To argue that /your/ state or churches particular definition is "right" and the other's "wrong" is not a valid argument in the US, and frankly history shows very clearly that it never has been that way.  Reality is that the constitution overrules all of it and has to, unless we're going to switch to a theocracy - and even if we did, why should the churches who welcome SSM be forced into submission by those who are against it?? 

In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans; and it's not even limited to the US, the UN and many other countries note the exact opinion.  Even if one wishes to argue that it's just Liberals pushing an agenda, then the painful truth for "selective traditionalists" is that Liberals are winning across the planet...

-----

Now, if we want to talk honestly about the supposed "pedophile" threat SSM somehow opens up, well then lets talk about some of the legit marriages approved by the church itself.   There wasn't originally any age requirement for marriages - in fact there are hundreds of marriage licenses from the 1850's that note the bride's age as young as 12 and grooms ages as young as 14.  Back then, prior to like the 16th century, there wasn't any concept of "childhood" what-so-ever - children were considered to be little adults so the idea of "pedophilia" didn't even exist as an "idea" much less was it recognized as a factor in a "legit" marriage.  In fact, "Pedophila" as a concept didn't even exist until the 1900's, and it wasn't until the 1950's that the actual term for it was put out.  It wasn't until 1929 that an actual rule was put down by the church(es) about children and marriage; 16 and/or 21 depending on particular religion and where in the world, and that wasn't even really a church thing, it was put in because of societal thinking changes, not because of any religious belief.  (The concept of sexual consent is believed to have started in India the late 1800's; it only applied to girls there and is believed to be a "defense" against forced rape.)  Still, even /after/ the churches put on that "age limit" in the early 1900's it was easily "gotten around" and still considered a "legit" marriage by both church and gov. just by putting down that the bride/groom was "under age" or a "minor" on the license.  There are some churches that note the "marriage age" as between 12 and 14 in the early 1200's though; they only declare specifically invalid marriages below age 7 - yet despite that declaration there are many church validated marriage licenses (even from that particular church) with kids as young as 2 or 3 years old long after that, up until the late 1800's.  (Which rather kills the idea of marriage being about "sex" as well... or I sure fucking hope it does anyway.) 

(And of course, you realize that is exactly why they defined pedophile as age 11 and below, and why they specifically note that the "adult" must be at least 5 years older than the object of their desire, right?  Because if they didn't set the bar that "low" in the 1850's it would label like 90% of the marriages in the world at the time as "pedo marriages" heh)  Times change though, and society, quickly followed by gov, and church, change their views on all kinds of stuff - thus the 1929 church declaration of 16 or older unless the parents consent. (By that time parents weren't doing so many arranged marriages, so it was much more about the kido's choice than the parents political/financial arrangements - and of course on the heels of social uproar about little girls being raped in India... - aka there wasn't much bitching about said change by anyone.)  

Now, in America, almost from the beginning, we didn't even bother with writing down the ages of the bride/groom so who knows if they were "legal" age.  However, there is a late 1600's marriage license issued in the new world with the brides age of 9, another has the grooms age as 4 years old; those are under the English religious rules of course, but there's really no evidence to support a theory that churches in America (as a new country) imposed "consent ages" for "valid" marriages until /after/ the age of consent was established in US law (and of course those ages varied from state to state) so it's not likely that we American's enforced the 1200's church marriage guidelines of 12-14 years old any more than those in Europe did (specifically Wales, Britian, Scotland as I recall that particular churches influence).  If we presume that America, like the majority of the rest of the world, followed India's late 1800's social change/uproar regarding the "sexual" age of consent, then we could "guess" that is when the church began to actual "enforce" any kind of legal age of marriage concepts in America.  Though it should be noted that even as late as the 2000's we have continued debate about things like "Romeo and Juliet" relationships trying to get around sexual consent and marriage laws alike.

To be clear, it's not that I personally approve of young aged marriages, nor that I think we as a nation should, but rather that /if/ we are going to argue about supposed church "tradition" when it comes to "pedophilia" then let us argue truthfully, instead of avoiding the reality that the "age rules" of "traditional" marriage in the eyes of the church have changed massively over the past few centuries, (and I've really only touched upon the tip of the ice burg for changes of so-called "tradition" within religion.)  Thus I feel that using "tradition" as an argument against SSM is uneducated, if not flat out dishonest...  If anything, the argument that SSM is going to lead to pedophile marriage would actually be more of a /returning/ to so-called "church" tradition, than /continuing/ the more modern idea of /not/ allowing it...


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Homosexuality is bad for society as a whole
> Homosexuals can not have children
> Homosexuals are psychologically imbalanced
> God created a MAN and a WOMAN for family purposes and with differing personalities and skill sets.
> Anything that deviates from that is "sin born" and needs to be repented and turned from in the eyes of God.


Actually, according to the Bible, G-d create a man and a woman to have sex with each other to be fruitful and multiply -- *and then* have sex with their kids/parents and their siblings to be more fruitful and multiply even more.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


And we never will -- it's hard-coded in our Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes
> ...



The looney bin let Keys have access to a keyboard again.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes



There is LITERALLY... no such thing as a Homophobe...


Syriusly said:


> gay Americans who can now legally marry.



There are no Leftist Americans and Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.




Boss said:


> They can't in Alabama. We don't do marriage licenses anymore...



Yeah I heard that Alabama was shutting down the issuance of Marriage License and that's a Mistake.

In the fairly near future, the political winds are going to shift... and shift 180 degrees.  And that shift is going to reject the ideological Left... and it is going ot go to work to hold those who scuttled the nation, INDIVIDUALLY responsible.

The Licenses issued to Homosexuals provides EVIDENCE of Crimes against the People of the United States, in stark, specific and irrefutable terms.

Sure.... the Voter Registration roles are available... but all that shows is that a person was affiliated with the enemy's political party.  It doesn't show that they actually bought into Left-think or open, unmitigated, deviant acts of degeneracy.

The Marriage Licenses signed by the individuals who have applied to officially play queer-house, do that.

With that, a trial for crimes against the people should not last longer than it takes to ask: "is that your signature" and where it can be established that they are the same person that signed that application and accepted that 'license', they're guilty.  Then its just a matter of taking them to where their skulls can be crushed by a sledge, as the next one is already being questioned regarding THEIR 'license'.

Sorta like a slaughter house, minus the empathy for the poor innocent creature being dispatched, as _at least _cattle serve a viable purpose... .


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.
> ...


You're still fucking deranged.

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to ... which is the primary purpose of marriage and why it's a right ... your brain remains too deformed to comprehend. 

And again, using your twisted logic, blacks had equal rights to marry ... they could marry any other black person.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Umm, hate to kick your soap box out from under you ... buuuut ........ married gay couples are far less likely to spread HIV.



LOL!

LOL!

.

.

.

ROFL!

.

.

.

OEeewww MAN!  That's funny.

Queers are disease sponges.

The premise is that once' Married', the fudge packer will somehow be struck with a sense of principle...

Principle, which of course, it had ignored from the first time it sucked cock... and every time it did so right up to and through the pretense of the 'wedding' night.

So... It's fairly unlikely that the unprincipled degenerate is going to find the strength of character to behave within principle... just because they're pretending to be principled, by claiming themselves married... in the hopes of being 'seen' as "Legitimate", OKA: "A person of principle."


If the lowly fag were capable of principled behavior... they wouldn't be a fag.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes
> ...



Says you, and your 'homo means 'self' nonsense. The dictionary says otherwise. In any contest of the meaning of words between you and the dictionary....the dictionary wins.



> There are no Leftist Americans and Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.



....or one man and one man. Or one woman and woman. As our law so delightfully demonstrates, your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively. 



> Yeah I heard that Alabama was shutting down the issuance of Marriage License and that's a Mistake.



Alabama might pout for a little while. But more rational heads will again prevail and begin issuing marriage certificates. And if they issue them for anyone, they have to issue them for straights and gays.



> In the fairly near future, the political winds are going to shift... and shift 180 degrees.  And that shift is going to reject the ideological Left... and it is going ot go to work to hold those who scuttled the nation, INDIVIDUALLY responsible.



Unless none of that actually happens. Remember, your record of predicting the future is awful. You told us that the USSC was going to overturn same sex marriage in Obergefell, told us that the people would turn on the Supreme Court, even predicted a civil war.

None of that happened. Your subjective opinion clearly offers no objective insight into future events. And have proven statistically to be worse than guessing.



> The Licenses issued to Homosexuals provides EVIDENCE of Crimes against the People of the United States, in stark, specific and irrefutable terms.



Save for the 'crimes' part. Or the 'irrefutable' part. Remember, issuing licenses for gays isn't a crime. Which kind of takes the wind out of your sails on the legal front.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. 

You can pretend all you like that YOU define marriage. Back in reality, you remain nobody. And we define it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Unless none of that actually happens.



Well, that's what CNN told those who asked 'what happens when Homosexuals are accepted and they demand to be married.

It happened..., because it HAD to happen. As such are the nature of slippery slopes, because they lead directly  to_ inevitable consequences._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> ....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.



No... Marriage is defined by Nature.  And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Unless none of that actually happens.
> ...



None of your murder fantasies regarding gays 'have' to happen. Nor is there the slightest evidence that it will. You're confusing what you want to happen...with what the evidence suggests actually will. 

Remember, most people support same sex marriage. 







Opposition is 27 points down. With the fighting age folks supporting same sex marriage about 4 to 1. You have to all the way to senior citizens before you find an age group that doesn't support same sex marriage in the majority. 

And even among those who oppose same sex marriage don't want them murdered. 

Remember, you're insane. And that tends to limit the appeal of your message to rational people.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Remember, issuing licenses for gays isn't a crime.



No one has said otherwise.  What I said is that the License issued to deviants who want to pretend to be 'married', will be used as evidence of their crime against humanity.  

I'm a big fan of irrefutable evidence served by the signing of such licenses, as it will spares those seeking to serve justice, the time of having to prove their case through more tedious means.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Remember, most people support same sex marriage.



Golly... if that were relevant in any way, at all... wouldn't that be a wonderful point?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > ....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.
> ...



There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works? 

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



To form a new family where there was none previously. 

Right?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, issuing licenses for gays isn't a crime.
> ...



Yeah, but you don't offer irrefutable evidence. You merely call your subjective personal opinion 'irrefutable'. And then plead with us desperately to accept your fallacy as real. And to the best of my knowledge, no one does.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Huh? Do you want to put that in the form of a complete sentence with a subject?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> There is no marriage in 'nature'.



Well, the only thing that needs to be established for that to be true, is that humanity must be removed from Nature.

Be sure to let me know when you work that out.

Until then, while humanity IS a function of nature, and where nature provides for two distinct genders; each specifically designed to join with the other... which defines marriage... Marriage will remain defined by that natural human physiological standard, as The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, most people support same sex marriage.
> ...



Well, in terms of the political winds and your civil war fantasies, its immediately relevant. As people most folks support what you oppose. And they'll vote in accordance with their beliefs. Not yours.

As for your imaginary 'civil war', even you won't fight in that fantasy. And millenials certainly aren't going to sacrifice their lives because of your insane murder fantasies of homosexuals. 

Rendering your perspective irrelevant. Twice.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



We were talking about the purpose of marriage? Correct?

Was, one man and one woman, not too closely related, and to create a family unit where previously there was none before. 

Do I have that right?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Yeah, but you don't offer irrefutable evidence.



True... but then I am not a license signed by two people of the same gender.  Which will be irrefutable evidence of those two individuals being guilty of crimes against humanity.

Understand... I am not here contesting the licenses, or the queers signing them.  I am here to advocate for such, for the purpose of promoting a clear and incontestable record of those who represent: THE PROBLEM.

This, so that when the cultural pendulum shifts... those who are tasked with SOLVING THE PROBLEM will have a clear path to identifying those who represent such.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > There is no marriage in 'nature'.
> ...



Outside of human society, there is no marriage. If marriage were 'law of nature', it would exist outside of human societies.
*
It never does.* It exists ONLY when we invent it. And it is defined by us. Marriage is what we say it is. And we define it as including one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one woman. 

You can't get around that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Well, in terms of the political winds and your civil war fantasies, its immediately relevant.



No question there... and I'm not suggesting otherwise.  

The coolest part of "The Record" is it's staying power.  And who could ask more from it?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nope. Can you just skip ahead to your incest argument, my little one trick pony. Then we can tell you that nothing you've insisted must happen has. And you can pretend that you know the future. And we can all get our chuckle.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Outside of human society, there is no marriage.



LOL!  You seem to be gifted with the means to offer irrelevance... .

Now can you show a viable purpose for such?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Well, in terms of the political winds and your civil war fantasies, its immediately relevant.
> ...



And the coolest part about your imagination is that it really has no impact on reality. We're not bound to your fantasies. That you imagine that folks will somehow agree with you....apparently 'because' .....doesn't change the fact that they don't. And there's no indication that they will. 

You keep assuming that your subjective opinion define the future. But they really don't.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Outside of human society, there is no marriage.
> ...



If marriage were a law of nature, it would apply across nature. It doesn't. It applies only in human socities and only as we define it.

You're still hamstrung by the delusion that YOU define marriage. And you're still just as irrelevant as you ever were. Remember, when you told us that you knew how the USSC was going to rule on Obergefell?

How'd that work out again?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Do you agree with what I posted. 

Is that really that difficult?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Obviously not. We were not discussing the 'purpose of marriage'. You're desperately trying to shift the conversation to the same silly 'incest' fallacy as you ever do.

While I appreciate the rhetorical foreplay, really...just jump ahead to the part where we start laughing. For time's sake.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nope. Can you just skip ahead to your incest argument, my little one trick pony. Then we can tell you that nothing you've insisted must happen has. And you can pretend that you know the future. And we can all get our chuckle.



Incest is irrelevant...

The next natural progression to the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, is the licensing of the deviancy OKA: Pedophilia.

We're seeing this played out as the US Federal Government is now licensing Pedophilia in US Combat zones, where the lowly Muslims; who being saddled with the same mental disorder as homosexuals are known far and wide for their desire to pursue children for sexual gratification.

This is resulting in the removal of Americans who take action to check child rape... whereupon the same government that has recently licenses degeneracy in the US is forcing those troops out of the US Armed Forces.

Such is a natural and wholly inevitable consequence of the Supreme Legislature's recent decision.

As I said, it is only a matter of time before this is pushed domestically... and such will trigger a reversal of fortunes for the degenerates... resulting in the removal of those individuals from the US Culture.

The efficiency of which will be markedly improved by the reference of the would-be 'marriage' licenses signed by sexual deviants.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Oh, I see, the reasoning for the law has no purpose. 

Why do you suppose the government has an interest in the formation of the family where there was none previously? Or, for that matter, why this unit must be comprised of those that were not previously a member?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Can you just skip ahead to your incest argument, my little one trick pony. Then we can tell you that nothing you've insisted must happen has. And you can pretend that you know the future. And we can all get our chuckle.
> ...



Nope. Same sex marriage has been legal in parts of our country for 10 years. Pedophilia is still illegal everywhere.

I don't think 'naturally' means what you think it means. As so far you're equating 'naturally' with any batshit you can possibly make up.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yes, we invented it to serve a purpose.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What reasoning? If you have an argument to make for incest....make your case.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Can you just skip ahead to your incest argument, my little one trick pony. Then we can tell you that nothing you've insisted must happen has. And you can pretend that you know the future. And we can all get our chuckle.
> ...



Was my post #750 regarding the pedophilia and the church too long to read, or do ya'll continue to ignore the reality of "traditional" values of the church being altered regularly and changed by society?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Obviously not. We were not discussing the 'purpose of marriage'.



YAWN!

The point of the purpose of marriage is now moot.

The purpose of Marriage is obvious and the deviants could not care less about it, as "PURPOSE" is an objective consideration.

Sexual Deviants possess no means to consider their environment objectively... they exist solely to serve their own subjective needs.

Time will solve this problem, as they do not possess the means to stop.   They will continue to demand greater and more egregious "RIGHTS"... until the culture inevitably recognizes it error and turns to destroy them.

(This is not the first time this has happened.  This is however the reason that the deviants have lived 99.999999~% of human existence IN THE CLOSET.  Because every time that humanity has let them out, they have WRECKED THE PLACE!  It happens the same way, every time.  

And it is from THAT experiences is that sexual deviancy is known to present as a symptom of mental disorder.)


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Again, you don't need to shift the conversation to the 'purpose of marriage', so you can sneak in your incest nonsense. Just jump right in. Its your only argument. 

Its not really a surprise anymore.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Was my post #750 regarding the pedophilia and the church too long to read, or do ya'll continue to ignore the reality of "traditional" values of the church being altered regularly and changed by society?



Shhh... 

We're not entertaining the pitiful idiots at the moment.  Please wait your turn.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously not. We were not discussing the 'purpose of marriage'.
> ...



The 'purpose of marriage'....according to who? Remember, no one is required to have kids or be able to have them to get married. And about 1 in 5 marriages never produce any child. Yet those marriages are just as valid as any other.

So there's clearly a valid purpose of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Just slaughtering your entire argument.


> The purpose of Marriage is obvious and the deviants could not care less about it, as "PURPOSE" is an objective consideration.



You're not offering an 'objective consideration'. You're offering us your subjective personal opinion. And then desperately pleading with us to accept it as 'objective'.

Um, no. No one is held to the standards you insist we apply to gays. There's a reason why you were so laughably, comically wrong in predicting the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Keys is the unraveling of a mind......


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, hate to kick your soap box out from under you ... buuuut ........ married gay couples are far less likely to spread HIV.
> ...



Thus spake the bigot.

By tomorrow the home will have taken his keyboard privelages away again.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You've yet to answer as to you agreed or not with my description as to what the marriage law was  

Agree or disagree?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I am already laughing at the image of Pop dancing with his strawman.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Why do you suppose 1 in 5 hetro marriages never result in a child being produced by the members of the family?

Why do you suppose no children have ever been created by a same sex coupling?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Don't ever expect any rational response from Keys. 
Just accept them as the irrational ravings of a mad man.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Why do you suppose Pop always posts in the form of a question?

Why does Pop avoid making declarative statements?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You think that hurts?

You are stranger than can be explained.

My question is so tough that you can't answer for some odd reason.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I made one earlier, yet skylar can't seem to agree or disagree with it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Pitiful Sexual Deviant said:
			
		

> Outside of human society, there is no marriage. If marriage were 'law of nature', it would exist outside of human societies.
> *
> It never does.* It exists ONLY when we invent it. And it is defined by us. Marriage is what we say it is. And we define it as including one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one woman.
> 
> You can't get around that.


There is no "US" Skylar.

You are a sexual degenerate.  Your cult is a feckless mob, which is fortunate only in normal people being busy, trying to earn a living.

In the vey near future the Left's economic policy will result in catastrophe... as it must.

When that happens, people will turn to  survival and in so doing they will turn from themselves and toward the objective nature of God, as they must.

When that happens, they will realize that they have been poor stewards of God's gifts... and their foolishness in allowing you to lower the standards of civilization... which resulted in their allowing the Left to come to power... and that it was THAT that caused them to lose everything.

At which time they will go to work to clean the mess up.

And the records you so proudly signed, will be used to hunt your cult down as a means to cull you from humanity. 

Again... this is not the first time this has happened.  And it will not be the last.

Humanity learns things... those things lead to prosperity... the prosperity leads to many distractions.  Distractions lead to losing focus, purpose and inevitably control.

Losing control leads to the loss of everything. 

Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, hate to kick your soap box out from under you ... buuuut ........ married gay couples are far less likely to spread HIV.
> ...


Spits the forum clown who called himself a "sexual deviant."


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Outside of human society, there is no marriage. If marriage were 'law of nature', it would exist outside of human societies.
> ...



Please fix the quote, that is not mine. 

Thanks


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

To try and help you understand how this is going to go for you... and your fudge packing cult.

Take a look at the end of World War Two... 

The most powerful people in Europe, who had ruled with an iron fist for a generation, were reduced to rats hiding in hovels, running in the shadows and being caught by what they had commonly referred to as peasants.

Mussolini was caught on the back of a flat-bed truck... wearing an overcoat of a German enlisted man.  Weeks later he and his old lady would be hanging by their feet... being burned.

When he was arrested, Mussolini's response was "Why?   I haven't done anything...".

And in truth... all he did was to impart a perversion of human reasoning upon his nation, which inevitably caused incalculable destruction.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Pardon me Pops.  I'll take care of it.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Outside of human society, there is no marriage. If marriage were 'law of nature', it would exist outside of human societies.
> ...


Day 94 of the Great Conservative Butthurt™. The butthurt goes on.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No one knows butthurt better than a homosexual I suppose


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh now that is ADORABLE!

I am always amazed at how imaginative the intellectually less fortunate are, in their means to concede to the standing points.
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted, Degenerate._


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> To try and help you understand how this is going to go for you...


ummm ....  *here's how it went* ...

_No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they dorespect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

*It is so ordered.*

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf_​
Game ...

Set ...

Match!

... g'head ... this is where you bitch, moan, and call for the deaths of Liberals everywhere...


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Not as cute as you declaring victory after getting your butthurt again.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Could be, I wouldn't know. I do know that rightards across America are suffering the greatest butthurt since Roe v. Wade.

... and that's a good thing for America.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > To try and help you understand how this is going to go for you...
> ...




Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Faun (Sep 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Not in the U.S..


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, that is YOUR words.  The Creator is non-physical so it doesn't need creating. Also, you do not need to explain the explanation. This only leads to no explanation for anything.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> ...



*Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic.*

A tad. I always try to be a tad melodramatic for effect. It tends to bring the nutbags out of the woodwork. Yeah, homophobes are condemning homosexuality, christophobes are condemning Christianity, dogs are still chasing cats.... you're still posting nonsense without making your point... what are ya gunna do? 

*In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court.*

Yes... you hit the nail on the head... it has been DEEMED legal, by a rogue court legislating from the bench,. Same way Abortion was "deemed" legal... how's that one working out for ya? Have the Christians accepted it yet? 

*If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one.*

But what if I like homosexuals and I just don't like them changing our traditions to include their sexual behavior? Is this like the deal with the black people where I can't disagree with them without being a racist? 

*they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.*

Would one of you please tell me what right they didn't have that everyone else had?


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Have you been arguing to get the gov out of the "marriage business" for your whole life, or only /now/ that the rules of the game are changing about your "ball"?



It has been my position since about 1996. Before that, I was conflicted. Part of me wanted to support gay marriage and part of me said homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. I'm an open-minded person with gay friends. In 1986, I attended a gay wedding of two dear friends on a peaceful mountainside in rural Alabama. That may seem odd, given my current position, but it was a "wedding" and not a "marriage." It was not licensed or recognized by the state but you know what? I don't think a soul on that mountain gave a shit. The gay couple certainly didn't... in fact... that is where my current viewpoint comes from. Now they tell me their right to love each other is not affected by laws concerning gay marriage. They have been able to handle all their legal, insurance and finance issues through special contracts and arrangements, the only thing they don't have are the tax breaks. The civil unions idea presented, which comes from them, solves the issue of the tax breaks and is a much easier solution.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans



funny, I don't find the word marriage in the Constitution. Can you please point out to me the Article and Section where you're reading this?


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....



*NO ONE* has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it! 

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton.  If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Tough shit.


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....
> ...


Amazingly,  *you still don't get it.* 

It takes two consensual adults to marry. 

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans
> ...


Who said rights have to be spelled out in the Constitution?


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says. 

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love. 

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board!  Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can fuck those beautiful knockers.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans
> ...



So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes?  It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

~Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.


_Maynard v. Hill__, _125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
_Meyer v. Nebraska__, _262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
_Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
_Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
_Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
_Boddie v. Connecticut_, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
_Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur_, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
_Moore v. City of East Cleveland_, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
_Carey v. Population Services International_, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “_t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
[*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
[*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
[*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
[*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
[*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
_


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)



What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which *is* clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares. 

YOU said: *In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.
*
I asked you to show me where!  In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very *barely* considers"  ..and THAT is the fact. 

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I fuck teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like fucking goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.
> ...


It's a right that the government cannot take away without a compelling reason. And while you are certainly welcome to throw away your rights, you have no business whatsoever imposing that idiocy upon others.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.
> ...



It's in the 14th Amendment and there are at least 4 court cases referencing it. _Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely_ and _Obergefell v Hodges_.


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



_The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years._​
Same Bigots, different decade.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



It is NOT in the 14th! 

_Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
_
Where is there ANYTHING about marriage?* IT IS NOT MENTIONED!*


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 29, 2015)

This thread is gay...


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

_* nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So are hebephiles and about 5,000 other odd sexual proclivities. Marriage is the union of a man and woman... there is no requirement on any law book that those parties have to be a certain sexuality. 

I am being denied the right to marry Kate Upton!


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 29, 2015)

Declare, considers, given - same meaning as a matter of casual discussion, but sure play semantics. I did provide evidence about marriage rights declared/defined/considered/given/protected by the constitution; 14 supreme court cases which declare that marriage as a fundamental right protected by the constitution.


I then just followed the conclusion of your proposal that marriage was not a right because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution; but I'll expand.

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" vs [relevant part] Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To argue that marriage is /not/ a declared right of the constitution's fourteenth amendment statement (specifically liberty) is very similar to saying that the specific religion of "Christianity" is not a declared right of the Constitution's First, after all it's not specifically listed.  If you argue that the constitution does not protect the specific right of marriage then you have to also argue that the constitution would not protect a specific right to follow Christian teachings/beliefs. 

Under such a theory, for example; a Mormon controlled state passes a law that requires all men in the state to marry more than one wife - because the Constitution does not protect the specific freedom of the "Christian" religious beliefs (one wife) on a state level nor does it bar a state from enacting "religious" laws, and because the Constitution does not specifically protect "marriage" as a right - the law would have to be ruled as "constitutional."  The only argument one could have against the constitutionality of said law, would be that states are barred from infringing upon personal liberty by the first amendment, but that too would fall into your trap of "marriage isn't a defended right" claim.  So, really, as long as the feds (Congress) didn't make the law, the state could do whatever the hell the wanted; including, as I said, decide that Christianity was not socially acceptable and pass a bunch of laws that restricted its practice.  Like they could say that only Mormon religions could have tax exempt status, they could argue that Christian marriages performed in other states were not valid in their state, etc., etc.



In order to proclaim that the specific "Christian religion" is protected by the constitution, one has to extend unwritten words into the constitution's first amendment, and similarly we have to extend unwritten words into the protections provided by the fourteenth amendment re liberty.  I'm not sure how one can think otherwise frankly.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Again... Everyone HAD equal protection. Nowhere were gays not allowed to "marry" but marriage is the union of a male and female. Gays weren't allowed to have a homosexual relationship and pretend it is a marriage. That was the issue. Well... We don't allow hebesexual relationships to pretend they are marriages... We don't allow any other sexually deviant behavior to pretend it is marriage and demand a right to it.  But apparently, you and SCOTUS think we should! 

The statement was made that the Constitution "very correctly declares marriage is a fundamental right" and as I have demonstrated and you are now admitting, it simply "declares" no such thing! Then the statement was altered to say..._well, it says it in the 14th!_  ,,,,No, it's not there either! Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and I think there is a very damn good reason for that! It's not because it's unimportant and they didn't think of it... It's not because they were too stupid to include it... It's because it's not a "fundamental right" and certainly not something ordained or sanctioned by federal government. If it is anything regarding the Constitution, it is a State Right!

Finally, it appears some of you NOW want to shift the original bold statement into a completely different "argument" over whether the SCOTUS has ruled a certain way.... I can't argue that point! It's a matter of fucking public record, the SCOTUS made a ruling that defines marriage as a "fundamental right" and allows it to be redefined to include homosexual behavior. That wasn't the statement or argument we were having, which was regarding this being "very correctly declared" in the Constitution.... it is not mentioned in the Constitution!


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 29, 2015)

Semantics again? 

Okay, it's nowhere "declared" universally that marriage is between a man and a woman, many states allowed SSM - so now what?


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why is your brain too deformed to retain the marital requirement of consent?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But, you're the nutbag.....posting nonsense without making a point.  I see you're talking to yourself....



> *In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court.*
> 
> Yes... you hit the nail on the head... it has been DEEMED legal, by a rogue court legislating from the bench,. Same way Abortion was "deemed" legal... how's that one working out for ya? Have the Christians accepted it yet?



It's working out fine for me.  I don't have abortions and I'm not homosexual....there's a lot going on in the world, and it doesn't affect me.  Perhaps if you'd learn to keep your nose out of other people's business it wouldn't affect you either.



> *If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one.*
> 
> But what if I like homosexuals and I just don't like them changing our traditions to include their sexual behavior? Is this like the deal with the black people where I can't disagree with them without being a racist?



Your problem is that you are totally confused.  Apparently you don't know the definition of "logic".  If you really liked homosexuals you wouldn't want to continue treating them the way they have been treated.  What is so damn special about you that the world should worry about not changing "your" traditions?  Apparently you are in the minority and nobody gives a damn how you feel.....otherwise you and your "peers" (homophobes) would have gotten your way.



> *they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.*
> 
> Would one of you please tell me what right they didn't have that everyone else had?



If I have to explain it to you then you haven't been paying attention to what has been their pleas.  Why don't you do some research and find out?  If you have time to get on your computer and plan out your sorry ass whine about them, then you should have time to google for some answers to your ignorant question.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Declare, considers, given - same meaning as a matter of casual discussion, but sure play semantics. I did provide evidence about marriage rights declared/defined/considered/given/protected by the constitution; 14 supreme court cases which declare that marriage as a fundamental right protected by the constitution.
> 
> 
> I then just followed the conclusion of your proposal that marriage was not a right because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution; but I'll expand.
> ...



Again... It seems you think we are having an argument over what the SCOTUS has ruled.  Let's be perfectly clear, because I want no misunderstanding of my argument.... I have not argued that SCOTUS didn't rule in any of the cases you've cited. If you think that is our argument, you're not following me. That is without question. Anyone with any understanding of past history should realize that a SCOTUS ruling does not mean something is "declared" in the Constitution and it's certainly not "very correctly" declared... when we consider SCOTUS ruled slaves were property, Japanese-Americans could be interned, Native American could be run off their lands, women are subservient to their husbands, segregation was hunky-dory. SCOTUS doesn't change the words in the Constitution! It makes RULINGS on it's INTERPRETATION... it may be "correct" or it may be "incorrect" ...depends on perspective. In virtually EVERY case they have ever heard, there is a "dissenting opinion" stated and given, which very clearly outlines the opposing view. 

ALL religion is protected by the 1st Amendment. It is a fundamental 1st Amendment right. We don't have to "extend" anything to include Christian religion, it's a religion!  And besides... "extending words into the constitution" is a long way from "very correctly declared in the constitution!"


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Please define (specifically) what the Constitution says "consent" means?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans
> ...




Funny you should mention that it isn't in the Constitution.........then where do you get the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman, if it is not in the Constitution?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....
> ...



Now I see that we're arguing with an imbecile.  Of course a person has the right to marry the person they want to, if that person also wants to marry them.  You really are ignorant....I'm sure Kate Upton would barf at the thought of marrying you....that's what makes the difference, dimwit.



> What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton.  If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.



Same-sex marriage isn't about homosexuals wanting the right to marry someone that doesn't want to marry them......geez, I didn't realize there were people out there, dumb enough as to suggest something like that.  I'm sure that if you write the Supreme Court with your request to marry Kate Upton they'll get right on it to make it happen for you, moron.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> ALL religion is protected by the 1st Amendment.



Please state in intelligent words how same sex marriage harms or affects your religion?


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Obergefell did not define marriage as a fundamental right. *It reaffirmed it. * And for the umpteenth time, because you truly are too fucking deranged to understand ... gays were denied the right to marry the person they loved. The court could find no compelling reason to deny gays their 14th Amendment rights.

You've proven conclusively you are simply not capable of comprehending any of this. It's not complicated, yet it's above your _creator _ given limitations. You don't understand there's a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia and you don't understand the concept of consent.

To sum it up in one nice, neat little package -- you're fucking deranged.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



I don't know, maybe 3,000 years of Western culture where it has always been something between males and females? Or... as it is legally defined in any of the 50 States, who have the 10th Amendment power to address these changes or so-called "rights" to the satisfaction of their people through the ballot box?


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 29, 2015)

Sigh, again, you want to play semantics as some kind of childish "gotcha" when I've noted that I was just paraphrasing the term, I then, for your benefit, noted the words that I use interchangeably for causal conversation such as this board.   

The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right.  And yes, ALL religions are protected under the first, but in your theory that all rights must be "declared" in the constitution by word, it would not be.  By your theory, Satanists could decide that human sacrifice (with consent) was legal in a state and there would be no constitutional defense to repeal it.  Christian's could decide that only Christian people could be judges.  A state could decide that only whites could be police officers.  So on and so forth down the line of crap that people could pull out of their butts and say wasn't specifically protected by specific words in the constitution...

There are unwritten "rights" conferred by the constitution, your argument now appears to be that the SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to decide if a "right" is included for protection in the constitution, but that defies the entire purpose of the SCOTUS.  They exist specifically to decide those  matters, so if they say that the first's "liberty" statement includes "marriage" then that is the end of the line for the argument that it's not a right.  

Arguing that they made the "wrong" decision about marriage being a right since the 1800's because of your personal beliefs about same sex marriage legitimacy is just... dense.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> To argue that marriage is /not/ a declared right of the constitution's fourteenth amendment statement (specifically liberty) is very similar to saying that the specific religion of "Christianity" is not a declared right of the Constitution's First, after all it's not specifically listed. If you argue that the constitution does not protect the specific right of marriage then you have to also argue that the constitution would not protect a specific right to follow Christian teachings/beliefs.



It's not the same at all because Christianity is a religion. Homosexuality is not a marriage. AND, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is Homosexuality. There is no mention of certain liberties being afforded to homosexuals or any requirement to not discriminate on the basis of homosexual behavior. Now, we have to imagine that our Founding Fathers knew what homosexuals were back in the day, do we not?  So why would they fail to mention these rights they seem to have to change customs and traditions to suit their deviant behavior?


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right.



I have no problem with this and if this is what you said, I wouldn't have responded.  See? That wasn't so hard, was it?  We've all done this, we let our mouths get away from us now and then and say something really stupid... we're all human, it happens. 

So now, the SCOTUS has made a ruling. It was a 5-4 decision. You think it was a "very correct" ruling and I think it was a terrible and lawless ruling which will have serious consequences in the future. And THAT is the basis of the argument and thread. 

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING! Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior. As citizens, you have the same civil rights as everyone else, you don't get to create your own by redefining the parameters of traditional institutions. The court can't grant you that right, you don't have it!  Period! None of us do! We can't have a fucking society where everyone gets to do as they damn well please because they just want to do it! That's not "Liberty" ...it's ANARCHY!


----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You must first answer my question....


----------



## Skylar (Sep 29, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Sigh, again, you want to play semantics as some kind of childish "gotcha" when I've noted that I was just paraphrasing the term, I then, for your benefit, noted the words that I use interchangeably for causal conversation such as this board.
> 
> The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right.  And yes, ALL religions are protected under the first, but in your theory that all rights must be "declared" in the constitution by word, it would not be.  By your theory, Satanists could decide that human sacrifice (with consent) was legal in a state and there would be no constitutional defense to repeal it.  Christian's could decide that only Christian people could be judges.  A state could decide that only whites could be police officers.  So on and so forth down the line of crap that people could pull out of their butts and say wasn't specifically protected by specific words in the constitution...



Where in the constitution does the say that only those rights articulated in the constitution exist? No where. 

The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the entire idea. The opponents of the Bill of Rights argued against it because they worried that some hapless fool would read the Bill of Rights and conclude it was an exhaustive list. That ONLY those rights articulated in the Bill of Rights existed.

The proponents of the BIll of Rights argued that no one could be that fucking stupid, that the constitution was a document articulating government power, not individual rights. And that no one would be foolish enough to assume the Bill of Rights was exhaustive. The 9th amendment was a bit of compromise.

The oppoents of the BoR were right to demand the 9th amendment. As dear lord, such morons do exist.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Keys keeps repeating that to himself over and over, hoping if he does it long enough he will wake up and it will be true.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!



And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. *And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment. *

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument. 

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept. 



> Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.



Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. *Its equal treatment.* Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you in your own words- you are an idiot who believes in fantasies.....like creators just are here....with no explanation or origin.

All created wholesale from your imagination.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Keyes is insane. He genuinely believes that his subjective opinion defines all of reality objectively. There's no penetrating that kind of self delusion. But it is fun to point and laugh at.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Working out great. 

American women have had access to safe and legal abortion now for 40 years now, despite the efforts of some Christians to harm women's health.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Its fascinating to watch conservatives lose their shit over the extension of rights. They become outraged when they don't have the ability to impose their will upon others using the power of government. Or when people are allowed to make these decisions themselves.

I worry about a court that extends powers of the government. Not as much about a court that extends rights to the individual. 

*Its telling to note that conservatives view the extension of rights and freedoms as a threat and a crime.*


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If you had posted the exact same OP- only about 'black people' then yes- I am sure that rational people would be calling you a racist.

You don't have to like that marriage has been changed- and I am not calling you a homophobe because of your butthurt that homosexuals now are treated equally. 

I call you a homophobe for what you have accused homosexuals of. 
I call you a homophobe for your repeated comparisons of homosexuals to pedophiles.
I call you a homophobe for you comparing homosexual marriage to a pedophile marrying a child.
I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.
I call you a homophobe because you suggest that America should be condemning homosexuals for daring to be treated equally before the law.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line is that the constitution is interpreted to extend marriage as a fourteenth amendment right.
> ...



And again, NOTHING in the Constitution specifically protects "Christianity" either.  That does not mean it's not a protected religion.  IF you can extend the constitutions intent by "freedom of religion" to include protection of "Christianity" (a term that does not in fact exist within the words of the constitution,) then you must also accept that the constitution can indeed be extended to include the protection to rights that are not "specifically" worded therein.  Things like marriage, the right to have (or not have) how ever many kids you want, the right to learn foreign languages, etc., etc.  A state cannot enact a constitutional law that dictates that women must have 20 kids any more than they can enact a constitutional law that forbids a woman from having kids.  These kinds of laws are non-constitutional because of the rights extended by the constitution.  It doesn't matter if a religion could or could not back such a law in theory, it only matters that those are personal and private decisions as far as the constitution is concerned.


Oh the "Traditional" institution of marriage...  Do you mean the one that allowed 4 year olds to marry or the new 'modern' tradition of 18 or older unless the parents give consent then maybe 16?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Have you been arguing to get the gov out of the "marriage business" for your whole life, or only /now/ that the rules of the game are changing about your "ball"?
> ...



Civil Unions a much easier solution? Really? Changing the law to civil unions would require rewriting the law in all 50 states- and every law dealing with marriage within the Federal government.  Inheritance law- social security survivor benefits- veteran benefits.

Including same gender couples under existing marriage just makes them covered by existing law. What has already been done is far easier. 

And of course the very Christians who you whine are being attacked, were the ones who fought to ensure that gay couples could not have civil unions either. 

IF you want to advocate eliminating legal marriage in your state- go for it. But pretending that 'Christians' were willing to accept an equal alternative that eliminated legal marriage is just idiotic.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....
> ...



Once again you show your bizarre inability to understand 'Consent'

You do have the right to marry Kate Upton- and she has the right to marry you- but no one can marry unless both persons consent.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important? 

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Oh Keyes is quite insane. I don't actually read his posts, other than sometimes the first line.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Again you are arguing exactly what the State of Virginia argued in Loving v. Virginia in regards to mixed race marriage bans.

'Everyone had equal protection. Nowhere were blacks or whites not allowed to 'marry' but marriage was the union of a male and female of the same race. Blacks and whites weren't allowed to have a mixed race relationship and pretend it is a marriage'

Thanks for echoing the racist claims of the State of Virginia.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.
> ...



Of course you 'don't care' that the courts have declared that we Americans have a right to marriage.

You must have been terribly upset when the Courts told Virginia that they couldn't ban mixed race marriage- because you disagree about Americans having a right to marriage.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.



Okay, I call bullshit. No one is that fucking stupid. You have to have misread his statement or something.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.
> ...



Not bullshit- Boss is that fucking stupid- quote from the OP

_One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... _

I wonder if he has shared this prediction with his many 'gay friends'?


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm always concerned about the response of homophobes to gays marrying each other. They never seem to get the consent requirement.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!
> ...



If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by *The People*. That means *The People* get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I sometimes glance at his capitalizations...to see what he's really incensed about. It's always something completely bonkers.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Really? So when the people decided to ban handguns, the SCOTUS should not have ruled?

Loving v Virginia was "lawless"?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I think I get what you are really upset about now.

For the last 50 years, you have been simmering with resentment over Virginia v. Loving- because you feel like that was a lawless ruling.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Um, gays are people.



> That means *The People* get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.



Says you, making up your own fairy tale about the 9th amendment. Its a story backed by jack shit. Nothing in the 9th amendment says that its up to the people to determine what rights exist. Nor is there the slightest historical backing for your nonsense narrative.



> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> 9th Amendment of the Constituition



Notice that no where in the grand total of 1 sentence does it say a thing about the people determine what rights exist. Or the State deciding what they are. You hallucinated both passages. And your hallucinations are constitutionally and legally irrelevant.

Back in reality, this was why the 9tha mendment was created:



> It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
> 
> James Madison
> 
> Bill of Rights: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution



Again, notice the utter and complete lack of any mention whatsoever of the 'people' determine what rights are, or the States determining what rights are. But concern that in the enumerating of particular rights it would disparage those rights which were not enumerated.
_
Exactly as I described to you. _
*
Laughably, in defiance of reason, Madison and the 9th Amendment, your argument is that there are no unemumerated rights.* And both James Madison and the 9th Amendment contradict you. Worse, the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the States. Nullifying your argument yet again.

You simply don't know what you're talking about...and are imagining an alternate history where whatever silliness you imagine must be right. Alas, you're stuck with actual history and the actual constitution.....which actively contradicts your nonsense.

Again, the Constitution is a list of powers. It is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor was ever intended to be. Simply destroying your entire argument.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So...despite the 14th Amendment, you believe the People can decide in a state to provide the protection of set laws for SOME law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....but not for OTHER law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?

Is it because they are too closely related and their intercourse might create a tainted bloodline and defective children?

Two hetro sisters might just want to marry for the same reasons homosexuals wish to marry. Is that any more absurd? Or is it incest when sex is not in the equation.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



True, opposite sex, not too closely related in order to create a new family unit where none existed before. 

Odd that it is written to imply that the important aspect is to keep family members from marrying.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.  

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!"  Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!


----------



## bodecea (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I know the difference between a same - sex relationship and a different - sex relationship.  What makes you think that I do not?

And I see you are still struggling with consent.   Hint:  It does not mean you get to force yourself onto others.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Except, of course, that marriage has not remained the same for 5,000 years.  Even ignoring the evidence that same sex marriages may have occurred on occasion in the ancient world, what constitutes marriage has changed many times.  You consider this one aspect, that of male and female, to be immutable.  You have given no reason why it should be that way, other than cries of, "It's always been that way!".  It may not have always been that way.  Even if it has, that doesn't mean it always must remain that way.  

Now consent is an air-brained concept?  It's comments like that which cause people to wonder if you are unsafe to be around.  Just because the age of consent can change doesn't mean that the entire idea of consent is somehow invalid.  It works the same way for marriage; marriage has changed many times, it didn't invalidate the concept because of those changes.

Do you honestly think that if you took a modern day, US marriage and showed it to someone from, say, ancient Mesopotamia, that they would consider it a normal, valid marriage?

Yes, same sex marriage is a big change.  That doesn't mean it cannot happen.  Obviously it has not only happened in the legal sense, but it is becoming accepted socially as well.  

Maybe it would have been easier for society not to accept homosexuality.  Things didn't go that way.  You seem unwilling to deal with that reality.


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Nowhere has a law been set to prohibit some people from obtaining a marriage license. Everyone has the exact same right to the same exact marriage license and it isn't even asked what your sexuality is.... but marriage is a union of a male and female. Homosexual, same-sex partners, are not a male and female. They want their relationship to be considered the same as a marriage but it's not, it's never going to be, and it doesn't matter what SCOTUS rules or what liberals want. You don't have the right to define marriage for everybody, I don't give a damn about Ogeberfell or any other ruling by an activist court. It's not up to the courts, it should be up to the states and people to decide on their own. I personally think it should be totally up to the people and there should be NO government involvement with marriage, gay or traditional. The FEDERAL government certainly shouldn't have any authority.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.

Hint: children, animals and dead people cannot give legal consent. 

You're right that the concept of consent as it relates to age HAS changed...it keeps going up thankfully.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Well then...I guess that would DEPEND on who you are being denied from marrying..........dish.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.
> ...



Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Look Pop has dragged out his favorite straw man- he has named it incest.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why, shouldn't everyone get to marry the one(s) you wish? That is the claim afterall.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Incest implies an act or action, can you tell me the act or action hetro sisters, marrying for the rights afforded others recieve, might be?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



All we are seeing is that you cannot distinguish between two adults consenting to marry- and a pedophile marrying a 4 year old girl. 

The key difference is 'consent'


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriage is the union of a man and a woman- or a man and a man- or a woman and a woman.

Marriage no longer is restricted based upon the gender of one of the spouses- just like marriage is no longer restricted based upon the race of one of the spouses.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Can you then explain how hetro sisters marrying for the rights and benefits you claim you need, harm society? Please try to do so as a reasonable person.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are welcome to your opinion. However the people have decided that the government should be involved in marriage. As long as the people want the government to be involved with marriage, then State marriage laws must be Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage bans 4 times now- from Loving v. Virginia to Obergefel. 

That you don't approve is really your problem not anyone elses. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same gender- or force you to have sex in public with a gay man either.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Can you explain why you insist on promoting your views on incest in a thread ranting about how horrible homosexuals are?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Agreed.   It's amazing how the Right can't recognize the cause and effect of gay rights and gay marriage AND at the same time the INCREASE in the age of consent.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another.  I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying.  It could end up in court at some point.  I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 29, 2015)

Why must this devolve into a left/right thing?  This issue is not about political affiliation.  Sure, liberals and conservatives in this country may tend to fall on one side or the other where same sex marriage is concerned, but it's far from a universal thing.  I've seen self identified conservatives on this site support SSM and self identified liberals rail against it.

EDIT : I'm not targeting this at you, bodecea, your post in which you mentioned the Right wasn't the first to bring up political leanings.  This is a general statement hoping to keep this from becoming the kind of right vs left trash talking this site turns into so often.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Is whom you wish to marry legal?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 29, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why must this devolve into a left/right thing?  This issue is not about political affiliation.  Sure, liberals and conservatives in this country may tend to fall on one side or the other where same sex marriage is concerned, but it's far from a universal thing.  I've seen self identified conservatives on this site support SSM and self identified liberals rail against it.
> 
> EDIT : I'm not targeting this at you, bodecea, your post in which you mentioned the Right wasn't the first to bring up political leanings.  This is a general statement hoping to keep this from becoming the kind of right vs left trash talking this site turns into so often.


No offense taken...but I will point out that the posters here who always point fingers at gays and try to link us to societal declines don't seem to want to acknowledge that age of consent is going UP the same time gay marriage is becoming more acceptable.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



He's struggling with the 9th amendment and his hallucinatory version of the constitution, where it somehow defines all rights.

So you should hardly be surprised that consent is beyond him.


----------



## Dragonlady (Sep 29, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Given that Jesus never mentioned Homosexuality, and it's not covered in the Ten Commandments either, I'm hard pressed to imagine how accepting gay marriage leaves Christianity with no moral principles. 

What about love thy neighbour as yourself, or do unto others as you would have them do unto you?  What about the 10 Commandments?  What about the example Jesus set of living His life  in service to others?

There's very little in the Bible about homosexuality but a whole lot about eschewing wealth and power and serving others, which the right conveniently ignores.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They already have the familial tie that civil marriage provides. 

You can't restrict familial marriage to same sex siblings.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Great post. I appreciate it. 

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage. 

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



More precedent to allow such incestuous unions since many states already allow other incestuous unions as with uncle-niece and first cousins. RI, NY, NJ to name a few.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So, is there a point?

The reason family members were not allowed to marry (and let's stick to siblings at this point) was that intercourse could create a defective bloodline and defective children. Obviously when you remove the need for marriage being between a man and a woman, then obviously that part of the law is absurd between two same sex siblings, regardless of sexual orientation.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Could you supply a link to uncle-niece, I am not aware of that. As far as first cousins go, you realize they have to prove they are infertile, of course if they were same sex cousins proving such would be absurd. 

Agreed?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




15-1-4

"TITLE 15
Domestic Relations
CHAPTER 15-1
Persons Eligible to Marry
SECTION 15-1-4

   § 15-1-4  Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. – The provisions of §§ 15-1-2 and 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by their religion. "

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

"The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them."


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You are back to trying to make another thread about your obsession with incest.

And you drag out the same old arguments- including telling us 'the reason' family members were not allowed to marry- once again ignoring ANY other reason.

Because that is not why you drag your straw man out.

Over and over and over. 

If you want to be able to marry your sister or mother- you have the same right to go to court to demand your 'rights' as anyone else.

Doesn't mean that anyone will agree with you.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net._

_Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118_


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> _Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
> marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
> raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net._
> 
> _Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118_



See the same issues of abuse in traditional marriage as with polyganous though. Arranged and forced marriages like.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Back in Bible times men had more than one wife........are you okay with that because that was the way it used to be?  And, as far as your claim that it is legally defined in any of the 50 states......you may need to take a civics class....the Supreme Court laws trump any state laws, whether they like it or not.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.
> ...



No...he truly believes it.  I think he is motivated by fear.  And homophobes deny that their phobia has anything to do with fear....that statement he made says a lot more about his fear than anything else he may say.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> That means *The People* get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide.




And the "People" have decided, dummy....that is why the Supreme Court made it legal.  You and your minority group of homophobes have no say-so anymore.  You can try and do what Kim Davis does, and will only end up in jail, but that is definitely you all's choice.

And, I repeat.......the Supreme Court trumps State....you lose.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?




Geez, a simple biology class will help you understand why.....it is call inbreeding.   Of course, if a person doesn't care if they risk bringing disabled/deformed children into the world, they don't have to marry to do so, they can go ahead and have sex with their brother/sister to their heart's content.  It would be inhumane for society to allow it, but if you feel strongly that it should be allowed, write your Congressman.

Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?



No it can't.  Maybe at one time a black couldn't marry a white, but that's been done away with.  What is your point?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples.  However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.  

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.  

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely.  Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 29, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Think straight men hate gay ones because gay guys can have sex pretty much at will. Straight men have to beg and pay for it.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> You don't have the right to define marriage for everybody,



Herein is your problem.....nobody is trying to define your marriage, by the same token, you don't have the right to define the marriage of others.  See, it works both ways....but you have a one-track mind and will probably never get it.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Why, shouldn't everyone get to marry the one(s) you wish? That is the claim afterall.



No, the key word is "consent" and it has already been explained to you that animals and children and dead people are not able to consent.  So quit misconstruing the claim.  Homosexuals can't marry someone that doesn't want to marry them........geez, I didn't think it was really that difficult to comprehend.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 29, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why must this devolve into a left/right thing?  This issue is not about political affiliation.  Sure, liberals and conservatives in this country may tend to fall on one side or the other where same sex marriage is concerned, but it's far from a universal thing.  I've seen self identified conservatives on this site support SSM and self identified liberals rail against it.




It isn't a right/left issue.  There are plenty of Republican/conservatives that are homosexuals.  I don't understand why they would support a party where the majority of its members oppose and basically hate homosexuals, but that is not for me to answer.   I'm sure there are many Democrats that are totally opposed to homosexuality, too.  

But, *liberals*?  By the very definition of "liberal" I would find it difficult to believe they would be against it, unless they are only economically liberal but actually socially conservative.  I wouldn't classify someone in that category as a "Liberal".....I'm economically conservative and *socially liberal*, and I don't classify myself as a Liberal, even though my political opponents label me a "liberal" based on that one thing.

Log Cabin Republicans


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 29, 2015)

I get called a lefty all the time (which is always amusing since my political affiliations are very clearly noted in my sig.) heh


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > _Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
> ...



Do you? 

Obviously marriages between two people are far, far more common- so by pure numbers the numbers will be higher- but are you saying that there is no greater tendency regarding abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net by percentage for polygamous marriages?

Well you best tell that judge.......


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



LOL- no Boss believes since 'traditional marriage' has been DESTROYED by two men being allowed to marry- that will lead to polygamous marriage- which is itself- a traditional marriage.

Boss just wants his 'traditional marriage' and not others.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Polygany in and of itself doesn't threaten anyone or anything. What does is religious cults who practice it. But banning the marital practice because some cults abuse it isn't far or just. Be like forbidding all homosexuals from adoption because a few molested their adopted children.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Straight men can pretty much have sex at will too. If they are willing to have sex with gay men.

Why would any straight man be jealous over a man having sex with another man?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



I don't really have a dog in this race. 

Homosexuals went to court suing to say that they had the constitutional right to marry.

There is no question that Americans have the right to marry- that is as established as the right to own a gun- but just like owning a gun- States can restrict rights- but only if they can establish a compelling state interest achieved in doing so.

IF you can go to court arguing for your right to marry 3 women- and the State cannot provide a compelling interest as to why you cannot do so- then the laws banning polygamous marriages should be overturned. 

But so far all you have done is provide your opinion- and that is no compelling evidence at all.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You simply deflect. Is a non sexual hetro same sex sibling marriage any more damaging to society than any same sex marriage?

If so, please explain. 

Could not a sister couple argue that since they are not sexually attracted to each other but only seek the benefits of the institution to better raise their children not as valid as......

A gay, sexually active couples argument that the benefits of the institution so they can better raise their children?

Is the gay couples children somehow more important?

Would this not be civil rights?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> _Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
> marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
> raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net._
> 
> _Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118_



Again, incest implies an act or action. Same sex hetro siblings would obviously not engage in those. 

There is no sex requirement in marriage. Your assuming something that simply does not exist.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?
> ...



Same sex siblings cannot reproduce. 

Same sex siblings are not even inclined to sexual activity with each other. 

Geez, you should take a biology class


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?
> ...



Sure it can


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Why, shouldn't everyone get to marry the one(s) you wish? That is the claim afterall.
> ...



I agree actually, that was the gay marriage argument.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No- I am tired of you trotting out your straw man, attempting to derail threads with your obsession over incest.

One has nothing to do with another- I will just continue to point out that it is your straw man and quote the court on the subject

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net._

_Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118_


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Gay men just have to visit certain parks?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Straight men can just visit their palms.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So I again will ask the question, see if you can answer. What societal damaged is caused by two hetro sisters marrying so they can better raise their children. 

I know it's hard to think for yourself, it's not that hard to do.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



All men can, gays don't have hands?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Do you believe that a mother should be able to marry her son?


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



First, as I understand it, there are already some state laws regarding marriage between relatives in which at least one must be infertile for the marriage to occur.

Second, you avoid the question of whether there is a state interest in preventing marriages (and, I can only guess, sexual relations in general) between closely related family members.  That would allow denial of the right to marry.

The rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons.  The voting and gun ownership rights of convicted felons comes to mind.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.
> 
> Hint: children, animals and dead people cannot give legal consent.
> 
> You're right that the concept of consent as it relates to age HAS changed...it keeps going up thankfully.



Okay, so you start out saying consent is "anything but ethereal" and then go on to explain how it is but that doesn't really matter. There is no set national age of consent that we've all agreed to. An argument can be made that animals and dead people can't give consent therefore it can't be a parameter required. It's no different than saying gay people can marry if they can demonstrate the ability to reproduce. You are placing a demand that can't be met under any circumstance. 

And this arbitrary age that we keep moving up... what's up with that? On what basis do we establish someone is suddenly more able to give consent the day after their birthday than the day before? People mature differently, maybe a 13 year old is more mature than an 18 year old... you don't know. Besides, if we remove "morality" (based on religion) from the equation, we see that in nature animals begin to breed when they become sexually mature. Why can't this be made the case with humans? ...Other than some morally-based idea and preconception that is frankly antiquated in this modern day and time? 

It seems that suddenly, you perverts want to get all tight-assed and proselytize about your morals when it comes to "consent" and age of consent, or in applying consent where the parameter can't possibly be met. Do you really think future generations are going to give a shit about your moral hang ups? Haven't you made your case on this being more about rights than morals of society? It seems to be fine and dandy as long as you're going after what you want but you turn into a complete hypocrite when it comes to something you're uncomfortable with. Then, you want to break out the bibles and hymnals and talk about protecting our children from the evils of the world.... as if that has any damn thing to do with their rights as humans to give their own consent.

Twenty years ago, you couldn't legally consent to homosexual acts. So we see, legal consent can obviously be changed and it has been. In fact, it is far easier to change than the definition of a 3,000 year old tradition rooted in religious belief. And speaking of religious beliefs, what about Muslims who religiously believe in child marriage? Who are YOU to question their morals?


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You are welcome to your opinion. However the people have decided that the government should be involved in marriage.



Really? When did the people decide this?


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Without articulating your religiously-based morality, please explain what you mean by "societal harm" here?  Seems to me, people who are knocking down the doors of social morality by legalizing and legitimizing homosexual acts are not giving much of a shit about societal harm or what anyone thinks may be a harm to society. Those people are hooted down as religious zealots. 

What's "reasonable" what's "standard"?  You're sounding like the tight-asses who restricted porn back in the day... you'll know 'immoral' when you see it-- no need to define it. I'm sorry to inform you of this but society is not going to rely on you telling them what is okay and what isn't. You can have your opinion but you can't force your personal uptight standards on the rest of us. That's what this is all about, isn't it? 

You all want to be total hypocrites... This behavior over here is okay because we say so and it doesn't really matter what you think... That behavior over there is wrong because we think it's wrong.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



We are speaking as to if a law banning a relationship is good public policy or not, not if laws exist. 

If the existence ad law was the point, same sex marriage would not be legal. 

Is there a state interest in denying two hetro sisters the right to marry so they can assist in raising children? I can't see what that would be. 

You?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, but that's simply an opinion


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.
> ...



 I am an American who lives in America where the age of consent keeps going up and I'm okay with that. It's pretty ironic that you would call gays "perverts" in a screed where you seem to be advocating lowering the age of consent. 

You seem to think that society should judge what is moral by YOUR standards and so it must be very frustrating to be you. Just because you personally think something is immoral does not make it so. Societies change what they view as moral all the time. It was once moral for Americans to own other people. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that. It was once moral for old men to marry very young girls. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that. It was once considered immoral for a black man to wed a white woman. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that. It was once consindered immoral for a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry a man. It's not anymore and I'm okay with that one too. Guess what? Most of society is okay with those too. I get it, that pisses you off because YOU personally think gays are icky. Well, you're in the same boat as these folks were:


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It means exactly what it sounds like. See, when interracial couples and gay couples petitioned the courts for the recognition of their rights, those opposed to blacks marrying whites or gays marrying each other had to ascribe a societal harm in allowing these marriages. They couldn't do it. Millions of dollars and hundreds of lawyers could not come up with a valid reason to deny marriage to interracial or gay couples. 

So, if you truly believe that you should be able to marry and animal, an inanimate object, a dead person, a child or multiple spouses, you can do exactly what gay couples and interracial couples did and petition the court. If those opposed cannot ascribe a societal harm and the court agrees, you win. Best of luck with your case/cases.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I failed to answer your last point. Sorry, got busy. 

You state that the rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons and that restricted gun ownership by felons come to mind. 

True, we restrict those rights based on a conviction. We do not however restrict the felons neighbors this right. 

My argument is that you want to restrict the rights of same sex hetro siblings (the neighbor) based on the potential act or actions of an opposite sex sibling couple (the felon). If that is good public policy, then the argument that only couples with the potential to procreate can also be good public policy.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

I really didn't think it was possible for Pop's strawmen to get more incoherent. I was wrong.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


We've been over this already. Clearly, you don't learn.

You have it backwards... we're not denying one group of people a right .... we're treating similar groups *equal under the law.* No immediate family members may marry even though it may be safe for some of them.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.
> ...


It's amusing watching you call others a "pervert" in a thread you've dedicated to promoting the reasons why you think pedophilia and beastiality should be legal.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....
> ...


As always, your argument has no merit. How can it? You're fucking deranged, remember? You are legally allowed to marry Kate Upton. That's where your argument crumbles to dust. It's not the law that's preventing you from marrying Kate Upton .... it's Kate Upton preventing you from marrying Kate Upton. And why would she want to marry someone who fights for pedophilia and beastiality to be legal?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So homosexuals were treated equally under the law, so this actually isn't a civil rights issue. 

Thanks.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So what are the damages that Boss should recieve for the denial of his civil right to marry anyone he wants? Kate Upton is rich, Boss, I want 10% of what you get!


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> I really didn't think it was possible for Pop's strawmen to get more incoherent. I was wrong.



You sleep with members of your own sex, no wonder why you don't understand common sense?


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


They were not treated equally under the law. There was no compelling argument to deny them their right to marry the person they loved. There is a compelling reason to deny immediate family members the right to marry. And though it might be safe for some, such as same-sex siblings, allowing them to marry but not others would violate the equal protection clause.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


None. Again, it's not the law saying he can't marry her -- it's Kate Upton saying he can't marry her. He could sue her though, if he wants to.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 30, 2015)

Reader, if you've ever wondered what the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy looks like, in specific rhetorical terms...  below is a classic example of it:



Delta4Embassy said:


> Think straight men hate gay ones because gay guys can have sex pretty much at will. Straight men have to beg and pay for it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?
> ...



Huh...  That is what is known as objective ethics.  

The US is presently governed by what are known as Relativists...  and as the recent federal licensing of Degeneracy recently demonstrated, Relativism is the rejection of the objectivity which is essential to sound ethical reasoning.

The potential downsides of such are incalculable, but the subjective need of degenerates, is primary and stands above the everything from the common good, to the very viability of the culture itself.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> They were not treated equally under the law.



If "they" refers to sexual deviants in the United States, the statement is false.  As there was no inequality to be found anywhere with regard to such, that was not predicated directly upon their degenerate behavior.



Faun said:


> There was no compelling argument to deny them their right to marry the person they loved.



Again, this is a false statement.  Sexual deviants were not being denied the right to marry, as long as they applied for such with a person of the distinct gender.  As Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing Genders, with each specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other.  Humanity's best interests is served through the recognition and adherence to nature's law, as such serves as the guideline in sustain human viability.  Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  



Faun said:


> There is a compelling reason to deny immediate family members the right to marry.



Yes... there is.  And that interests is the same as that stated above: Sustaining the viability of the species through sound standards which recognize and respect the laws of nature.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



In your opinion- why not?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > I really didn't think it was possible for Pop's strawmen to get more incoherent. I was wrong.
> ...



And here Pop just shows what is at the root of all of this- his bigotry towards homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So Pops is just making crap up again, so once again this has nothing to do with incest- just Pop's bigotry towards homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That argument was made- and failed repeatedly in court. Congratulations on making the same losing argument that ultimately failed to impress the Supreme Court. 

Since, as was pointed out, states don't care whether or not couples have a potential to procreate.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.
> ...



Your inability to understand the concept of consent is not our problem- it is your problem.

I can understand why two adults consenting to have sex together is different from a man sticking his penis in the vagina of a 4 year old girl. I can understand why one is okay- and one is not.

So far from this thread- you do not appear to be able to do so.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You are welcome to your opinion. However the people have decided that the government should be involved in marriage.
> ...



The people have decided this every time legislation was passed regarding marriage.

Hell the 'people' decided government should be involved in marriage even when the 'people' decided to pass discriminatory laws to prevent homosexuals from marrying. 

You don't give a damn what the 'people' want- the 'people' are not asking for the government to get out of marriage- you are the one who has decided that this is what is 'best' for the people. King Boss deciding for his subjects.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I brought up certain laws regarding familial relations getting married to point out that the law already allows exceptions based on ability to procreate.

The state interest in denying the sisters would be based on the potential for abuse, exploitation and damage to the social safety net brought up in the Wisconsin ruling Syriusly posted a excerpt from.  I'm not sure if I agree with it; I'm somewhat on the fence regarding sibling relationships.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.
> ...



Once again you just display your lack of ability to understand consent. 

Sodomy laws had nothing to do with consent. Rape does.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your argument is that the only reason to prevent sibling relationships is based on possible issues from having children.  As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is not the sole reason.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You don't have to agree with it. Pop continually brings up his strawman and then insists that the only reason that States ban incestuous marriage is procreation. 

Whether or not we agree with the court's rational- the court does present another 'reason'- and was the one who pointed out that that was a valid State reason.  None of us know how a court would rule on the issue, or even exactly how a State would choose to defend its marriage laws banning incestuous marriage- but the State does have arguments other than procreation. 

But if Pop wants to go to court arguing that he should be able to marry his brother- and the State cannot provide a convincing argument as to why Pop should not be able to marry his brother- then there is no reason for the law to be on the books.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Twenty years ago, you couldn't legally consent to homosexual acts. So we see, legal consent can obviously be changed and it has been.



Once again you show that you do not understand the concept of consent in relation to marriage and sexual relationships.  You are just tossing the word around regardless of context trying to make a point.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The only one who has been a total hypocrite in this thread is you.

You who proclaims to be tolerant of homosexuals while at the same time piling total bullshit into your OP- and coming up with more homophobic bullshit ever since. 

To you homosexual 'behavior'- whatever that is- is wrong- because you have decided it is wrong. And you don't care that you can't come up with any reason other than your own 'morality'- which of course just means your own bigotry.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You defend your position by making the claim that since couple "A" has the potential to procreate, it is appropriate to deny a civil right to couple "B" who does not have that ability. Correct?

So, then it should be appropriate to deny a civil right based on the inability for a group not to procreate as well. 

Thanks again


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You didn't realize that homosexuals sleep with members of their own sex before this?

Where you been, hanging out with Mertex who thinks hetro same sex siblings can procreate?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Because marriage should be only between a man and a women, not too closely related and to create a new family where none previously existed. 

But you already knew that, right?


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > They were not treated equally under the law.
> ...


You referred to yourself as a sexual deviant, so who are you to judge others?

The remainder of your idiocy has been dispelled in other posts in this thread.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Clearly you've decided to bow up and just lie your sorry liberal ass off.  I've never fought for pedophilia or beastiality to be legal. I'm opposed to it just as I am opposed to homosexual marriage being legal. I don't think any of these things are a right and especially not a right that warrants changing traditions and words to accommodate. That's YOUR viewpoint, I am arguing AGAINST those things, you are making arguments which support those things. When it's pointed out that you support an argument that supports those things, you want to get on your moral high horse and proclaim that certain things "we just know is wrong" like some kind of moral crusader. Then you want to dishonestly turn my argument around and pretend I am condoning such things. 

You don't know how to be honest. You don't know how to be objective. You're just a sickening little puke who doesn't know how to do much of anything except lie and distort what others say.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, the equivalent would be to say no one could get married rather than say heterosexuals can but homosexuals cannot. Sans a compelling interest, the state cannot discriminate. They cannot say some siblings can marry but others cannot.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

This entire thread is you fighting the cause for legalizing pedophilia and beastiality. While you say you're against them being legal, you've done nothing but argue how there's no reason they shouldn't be.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Your inability to understand the concept of consent is not our problem- it is your problem.



No, it's YOUR inability to understand the concept of marriage which has brought us here.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Your inability to understand the concept of consent is not our problem- it is your problem.
> ...


Spits the deranged poster who doesn't know the primary reason people in the U.S. marry is to make a life-long commitment to the person they love; nor thinks anyone has the right to do so.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No it is not... you're lying as usual. Pointing out how your argument paves the way for something doesn't mean I support what your argument paves the way for. That's just plain stupid sounding. 

I like traditional values where marriage is between a man and woman and isn't defined by your sexuality.  I don't want to start establishing constitutional rights based on sexual behavior, that's YOUR position, that's what YOU want. Only, you want to be able to do it where YOU get to pick and choose who to discriminate against based on YOUR morality. I'm presenting examples to show what an absolute hypocrite you are, I don't condone any of this shit... except for my "right" to marry Kate Upton!  I'm all for that being made to happen.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The state's compelling reason in denying  siblings marrying is for the reason I stated, "incest" causing disabled/deformed children.  When the law was created, I suppose nobody thought that some day same-sex sibling marriage (because they cannot reproduce) would be a desire for some.  If there is enough interest in the country, like there was for same-sex marriage for gays, then I'm sure that it will be brought up and it is up to the country to decide whether it is necessary, or if maybe the rights that are being sought by this type of marriage need to be changed.

It is unlawful today but who's to say that it couldn't be changed?



> Same sex siblings are not even inclined to sexual activity with each other.


Well, you don't know that.  What if they are gay?



> Geez, you should take a biology class


I overlooked the "same sex" in your statement.  But, like I said, it could be changed, so if you really have a desire to see it changed....write your Congressman.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I take great pleasure in pointing out that the root of your ongoing attempt to derail every thread to your pet project of linking incest to homosexuality when it comes to marriage is your bigotry towards homosexuals. 

Here is your comment again- where you attack the poster based only upon the gender of people she has sex with

You sleep with members of your own sex, no wonder why you don't understand common sense


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



_Because marriage should be only between a man and a women, not too closely related and to create a new family where none previously existed. _

Why do you believe that is what marriage should be? 

Why do you believe that a couple who has had  3 children together- and then get married- suddenly is creating a family that didn't exist before?

And why do you believe that a couple who divorce- and then remarry- is creating a whole new family when they remarry?


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You remain fucking deranged. 

You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved. But you've been fighting the argument why pedophilia and beastiality will be legalized, despite all rationale to the contrary.

It's your fight. You own it.

I'm the one pointing out you are fucking deranged for believing pedophilia and beastiality will legalized. I believe I've more than proven my case, even if you are too fucking deranged to see it.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Laughable really. 

The reason that the state would have a compelling interest to deny same sex siblings the right to marry is because if one was of the opposite sex they might procreate?

You do understand how absurd that is, right?

You sound down right bigoted.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> If "they" refers to sexual deviants in the United States, the statement is false.




Where is your proof that homosexuals are sexual deviants?  FYI, many heterosexual people participate in the same type of sexual activity, including married couples....and they are not denied marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Oh really- you want to go there? I spent quite some time pointing out what a sickening little liar you have been in this thread. I am glad to do so again- since suddenly you want to get on your high homophobic horse about honesty.:

So once again- where you just bald faced lied- and have continued to pretend that you didn't.


Here is your lie- and I quote you saying:
Boss: "_I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children "_

Quotes of Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:
_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Boss, you're fucking deranged because you discuss issues, but gays aren't while having sex with their own sex?

You simply have to be amazed at how laughable their side can be. 

Amazing really.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No one has supported any argument which supports pedophilia or beastility.

Matter of fact- the only one who has brought them up is you. You have attempted- and failed to make an argument that allowing homosexuality is the same as allowing pedophilia or beastility.

What we have pointed out is that just displays your contempt for 'Consent' when it comes to sex or marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Incest involves an action. Calling two hetro sisters incestuous shows your bigoted nature. 

Shame on you.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, what's absurd is that you don't, or can't, understand what I said.

What I said was not what you attributed to me but that the compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage is due to health concerns. The reason for denying same-sex incestuous marriage is due to applyng the equally for all incestuous marriage. Just like the principle behind non-incestuous marriage, the law cannot deny different gender siblings from marrying but allow same-sex siblings to marry.

Do you understand now? It's only about the 7th or 8th time I've had to explain it to you.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Speaking of 'lying' as usual- I present again- Boss being nailed for his blatant lie- be prepared to watch him dance and try to pretend it is not a lie



Boss:  _"I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children" _

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:
_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Try to dance away from your bigotry- fine with me- glad to keep pointing it out. 

I take great pleasure in pointing out that the root of your ongoing attempt to derail every thread to your pet project of linking incest to homosexuality when it comes to marriage is your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Here is your comment again- where you attack the poster based only upon the gender of people she has sex with

_You sleep with members of your own sex, no wonder why you don't understand common sense_


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Pop showing once again that all of his straw men are just because of his bigotry towards homosexuals.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You Can explain your bigoted opinion until the cows come home, and all I can do is point out your bigotry. 

One marriage excluded the need for the partners to be of opposite sexes, the rest of the law becomes absurd when it is applied simply as a discrimatory tool against same sex hetro couples.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Because marriage should be only between a man and a women, not too closely related and to create a new family where none previously existed.



Not anymore.  The law has been changed.  The "not too closely related" law hasn't changed.  When enough people are able to convince the country that it needs to, then maybe it will, but I seriously doubt it.  Most people still abhor incest, whether it is reproducing or not.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You advocated the change in the law, then want to exclude millions who should have a right to benefit from that law?

My how the righteous so quickly became the bigot.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The only one displaying any bigotry here is you- and of course Boss.

You are the one who judges people based entirely because they have sex with the same gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Because marriage should be only between a man and a women, not too closely related and to create a new family where none previously existed.
> ...



Can you explain how two hetrosexual sisters, wishing to marry for the benefits and protections afforded others and to help in the raising of their children is incest?

Thank you in advance


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No- I just point out what  liar you are- and a bigot.

I support the right of same gender couples to marry- you want to discriminate against them. 

Because you are bigoted against homosexuals. 

I have said quite clearly that if you want to fight for your right to marry your sister- you have the same right to pursue that as gay couples did- and that if the State cannot provide a compelling reason to prevent you from marrying, then the law should be overturned.

You apparently can't come up with any reason for siblings not to marry. I have pointed out that the courts have come up with other reasons. 

The only bigots here are you and Boss. 

Again.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Hey, look at that! We agree on something. 

We agree Boss is fucking deranged for discussing issues; specifically...

He's fucking deranged because he makes comments and then later adamantly denies making them. He's fucking deranged because he can't tell the difference between two consenting adults of the same gender engaging in sex from a person raping a child or having sex with an animal. He fucking deranged because he believes legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of pedophilia and beastiality. He's fucking deranged because he thinks there's a law preventing him from marrying Kate Upton. He's fucking deranged because he thinks marriage is not a right.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'll bet you still wish blacks were forced to the back of the bus, don't you. Or maybe just the straight blacks?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The courts have already explained some reasons why they might not be allowed to marry

_For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_

But if you want to go to court to argue you should be able to marry your sibling- those are some of the arguments you will need to overcome.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I'll bet you still wish mixed race couples were not allowed to marry.  

After all- the same arguments you are making are the same arguments the State of Virginia was making on why Blacks and Whites should not be allowed to marry.

You= the racist State of Virginia


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Says you. The law says otherwise.

Now what?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> The reason that the state would have a compelling* interest to deny same sex siblings the right to marry is because if one was of the opposite sex *they might procreate?
> 
> You do understand how absurd that is, right?



Your statement is the one that is absurd....if one of the siblings is of the opposite sex, *they are not same sex* siblings.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh, indeed not, I'm showing that same sex marriage advocates are perhaps the biggest bigots there are. Let me post a perfect example. 

Both of the following female couples wish to marry so that they can share the benefits and protections of the institution. All four of the couples are single mothers and by marrying, they feel they can better raise their children. 

Couple A:  Mary and June

Couple B:  Mary and June. 

Which of the above couple is denied the right to Marry?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you think that sisters cannot be gay?

*Incest:
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other*


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that the state would have a compelling* interest to deny same sex siblings the right to marry is because if one was of the opposite sex *they might procreate?
> ...



You missed the "if" part. 

The state would be arguing that THIS same sex sibling cannot marry because "if" one of the same sex siblings were the opposite sex they might procreate. 

That is simply a silly argument. Yet it is yours


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Based on the information you provide, none of them should be denied under current law.  However, if June in couple A happens to be a cow, then they should be denied.
If Mary in couple B happens to be a child, then they should be denied also.  What's your point?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Now post the part of the law in which sex is a requirement, and my argument is that the sisters are heterosexuals

I know this is hard for you to beleive (which is strange), there actually are people that don't want to have sex with members of their own gender. 

True story.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Cows and children are not eligible marry, 

Ok, since you need to deflect I will add:

All are over the age of consent, and all are human beings.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> You missed the "if" part.


No, I didn't.  You must not be proficient in English.  You said "same sex siblings....and then "if one was of the opposite sex".....ergo, they cannot be same sex siblings if one is of the opposite sex.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Exactly, that is why it would be denied.  



> Ok, since you need to deflect I will add:
> 
> All are over the age of consent, and all are human beings.



Again, based on just that information, they are all allowed.  But, if one of the couples are siblings, they would be denied because there is a law that prohibits it.  What is your problem understanding that?  If you want to change that law, then you need to write your Congressman, or convince enough people that it is okay.  You can't do something that is against the law....don't you understand that?


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why do you keep posing the same questions that have been answered ad nauseam? 

Is it insanity or stupidity?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So then you appear to agree same sex heterosexuals should be granted the right to marry, OR explain the societal harm that could possibly happen by extending this right to couples that do not want to have sex with each other?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



In your case only a good clinical psychologist could answer that.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don't have to.  There is a law that prohibits close relatives from marrying - regardless of whether they claim they will have sex of not.  Most people consider sexual activity among family members as incest, that you know of some that want to be married but are not interested in having sex is irrelevant.



> I know this is hard for you to beleive (which is strange), there actually are people that don't want to have sex with members of their own gender.


Are you stupid?  Of course I believe it, I am one of them.  What I don't understand is your belief that sisters or brothers cannot be gay and may want to engage in incestuous relations just like some heterosexuals - er, like Josh Duggar.



> True story.


What is the story?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



What is my problem with that? Other than it's absurd, nothing. 

What possible societal harm comes from allowing the couple made up of same sex heterosexual sisters the right to marry so they can enjoy those benefits and to help raise their children?

Give it a shot, admitting there could be none is really not that hard.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I asked one. She said it was pure stupidity and bigotry on your part. Good advice, thanks. 

(Means I can read and laugh at your posts in a dismissive manner)


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the "if" part.
> ...



BINGO

Your bigotry toward these sisters are based on the fact that. Brother/sister has the ability to procreate.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal, I'd get a full And complete refund.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You do realize that when an abnormal person laughs at a normal person.....

Well, that's simply kinda sad b


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal,


*Newflash:  *Society has accepted homosexuality in the US as was proven with the Supreme Court legalizing ssm.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal,
> ...



Oh, just like it accepted slavery and women as chattal. 

Got it


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Homosexuality isn't slavery. Just shredding your analogy. 

But then, same sex marriage isn't incest. So False Analogy fallacies are apparently your bread and butter.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



A desire to shut down the topic.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




As a matter of fact....yes....and it was changed.  When you feel you have enough people to change the mind of the country.....by all means do so!


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Bigotry and dishonesty. 

That is the root of all of Pop's posts where he tries to equate homosexuality to incest.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 30, 2015)

Society accepted homosexuality long before SSM. Would say acceptance occured when you couldn't lock up homosexuals any more for being homosexuals.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> BINGO
> 
> Your bigotry toward these sisters are based on the fact that. Brother/sister has the ability to procreate.




You're really insane. I'm not bigoted toward these imaginary sisters, I'm stating the law.  And why are you deflecting.  The post was about your inability to comprehend good English.  Same sex siblings cannot be same sex siblings if one is of the opposite sex.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Once again- I refer to the language of the court. Remember, you don't need to convince us that you can marry your sibling- you need to convince the court

_For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net._


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> If there is enough interest in the country, like there was for same-sex marriage for gays, then I'm sure that it will be brought up and it is up to the country to decide....



Hold on!  ...We didn't let the country decide on gay marriage. We let the court legislate it from the bench. They aren't elected by the people, there is no political consequence for them. This was clearly NOT decided by The People, and I think that is what some people's big issue here is.  I am all in favor of allowing states to have votes and decide if they want to marry gay couples. It's the involvement of the federal government and SCOTUS that I am concerned with. Especially, the tampering and fiddling with the Constitution!  There was no "rights" issue here. There was no need for SCOTUS to hear this case.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



So how do two heterosexual single mothers that are sisters qualified as being incestuous?

Go ahead, give it a shot?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > If there is enough interest in the country, like there was for same-sex marriage for gays, then I'm sure that it will be brought up and it is up to the country to decide....
> ...



You are still upset about the court deciding for the country that mixed race couples have a right to marry- aren't you?

You are still calling that 'legislating' from the bench right? When you hang out with your 'gay friends' and tell them how pissed off you are that the courts- not the States- allowed mix race couples to marry?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Why do I have to convince a judge? A human right or a civil right exusts with or without a court order. 

Of course a bigot like you would think I'm such simplistic terms. 

So what is the societal harm caused by two heterosexual sisters marrying so that their children can be better raised?

I await your attempt at independent thought.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



How does mixed race marriage change the concept of one man to one woman?

Think on your own much, or does your bigotry run your entire life?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Society accepted homosexuality long before SSM. Would say acceptance occured when you couldn't lock up homosexuals any more for being homosexuals.



There are many groups that society shuns, not all are in jail.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yet I am the one who constantly asked how two same sex heterosexual sisters could be associated with the act of incest when, by nature, they would not have sex?

Is the lack of sex what's upsetting you?

What's the opposite of Kinky?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Who said that they did?

Go ahead, give it a shot. While you're struggling, I'll keep laughing at your last false analogy fallacy.

Deal?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > If there is enough interest in the country, like there was for same-sex marriage for gays, then I'm sure that it will be brought up and it is up to the country to decide....
> ...



It was decided based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.  And basically because of national approval of homosexuality.

Wiki:
Public opinion in the United States *shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.* This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples *violates the Constitution.*

The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Later in the century, cultural and political developments al- lowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, *along with shifts in public atti- tudes*. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal dis- course of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

What you're in favor of is irrelevant.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Who said a thing about hetoreosexual sisters? 

Again, Pop......homosexuality isn't incest. Nor is it slavery. Nor is it any of the other batshit nonsense you try to equate it to. 

So beyond your incest schtick.....do you have anything to add to the discussion? Because your ilk appear to have abandoned their various sundry arguments and fled.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




'Vanilla' is the accepted term for opposite of kinky.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



The core of Boss's arguments are profound and often imaginary pseudo-legal assertions. For example, that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the constitution. Or that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the State. 

Its utter nonsense.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



See here is the thing- and we have been down this path before- I don't have to make your straw man dance.

I happen to believe that two people of the same gender should be able to marry exactly the same way as any opposite gender couple. In other words- I think Bob and Bill should be able to marry exactly as my wife and I married.

I am neither arguing for- or against siblings marrying. That is your straw man.

You are bigoted towards homosexuals, and pissed off that they can marry- so you want to equate sibling marriage to same gender marriage- because you oppose both- and want to be able to attack everyone who supports same gender marriage.

You want to either be able to attack us for a) not supporting sibling marriage- then you want to call us 'bigots' or attack anyone who does support sibling marriage as being "immoral' and supporting sibling marriage.

It is your straw man. 

You want to marry your sibling go for it- you have the same right as homosexual couples to file a lawsuit- but you have to convince the courts- because it is illegal.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Don't forget- since homosexuals can marry- he expects homosexuals to try to pass laws allowing them to rape him in public.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved.



I've been shown nothing. I have been inundated with your meaningless opinion which shits all over "equal protection" and the very arguments you've made to condone gay marriage. The only reason you've presented is because "we all know it's wrong" and that seems to be it. Are you using the Bible or Koran to determine sex with children and animals is wrong? I think it's important that we discuss this and come to an understanding as to where you base your morals. 

Every indication thus far is that you don't really have many morals. The ones you have can be modified to include whatever because there is no consequence. This makes me think, when the hebephiles and polygamists challenge their equal protection under the law, you'll find a way to be on their side. And if you live long enough, you'll condone any other perverted thing that comes because you don't really have any morals. You want to pretend like you care about children but then... they are just clumps of cells when in the womb and a great source for body parts of living organisms when aborted. 

Faun... is a bad name for you... it should be Fraud.  That fits you perfectly!


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> *Why do I have to convince a judge*? A human right or a civil right exusts with or without a court order.




Geez.....it's not rocket science. 

*Because it is the law!  *Before SSM was legalized by SCOTUS, homosexuals were not able to marry throughout the country because it was against the law....they needed a court order in order to change it.  They got a court order.  End of story.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



If you want incest between sisters to be legal, make your argument.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Society accepted homosexuality long before SSM. Would say acceptance occured when you couldn't lock up homosexuals any more for being homosexuals.
> ...



Like which groups?  And what rights are they being denied?  Are you still talking about the two imaginary sisters?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Then Syriously's post from the judge is absurd. 

Thanks


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




I think he's main butt hurt is that the Supreme Court didn't meet with him to hear his objections and went ahead and made ssm legal.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Did I say those groups had rights denied? Nope, just they are shunned and not jailed. 

And......


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Here is an image of Pop's dance partner.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved.
> ...



You seem confused. What _you're_ offering is meaningless opinion. The court's findings are binding legal precedent.You haven't refuted the equal protection argument. You've merely ignored it. That you ignore it has no particular relevance to us or the law. 

And of course your other pseudo-legal gibberish remains nonsense. Your claim that a right must be enumerated in the constitution to exist is just ignorant babble. And your claim that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the States is more imaginary flotsam. The 9th amendment says no such thing. Or even mentions the States. 

You hallucinated it all.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 30, 2015)

Related question occurs, why's is it so easy to condemn anyone's sexuality? Can't be all about religion, are far larger groups equally condemned. Fornicators and adulterers for instance. So why do we condemn whole groups of people we've never met who're absolutely no threat to us? Ignorance? Easier to condemn people you know nothing about than have to learn one more thing? Espeically if you don't even know your own sexual demographic yet?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



It must be rough when you wake up one day and figure out that you are today's newest bigot.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved.
> ...



What kind of moral person makes bald faced lies like you do?

Answer- no moral person lies like you have done in this thread.

No moral person would make the attacks you have made in this thread.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Or.....your latest false analogy fallacy fell flat. And you're desperately scrambling to change the topic.

Homosexuality still isn't slavery. Or incest. Or any of the other nonsense you equate it with.

Try again. This time without the obtuse fallacies of logic.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Apparently Pop has come to terms with his chronic bigotry.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Please state how the two sisters above would qualify as incestuous.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Says today's latest bigot


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



What day was that for you?  My condolences....maybe you need to change your attitude.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I thought you said you were?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You have a hard time keeping up. 

I get it, deflecting is the latest bigots attempt at humor.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Coming from you- that is a badge of honor.

Pop thinks I am a bigot because I support homosexual couples and mixed race couples being able to legally marry.

I think Pop is a bigot because he attacks people for being homosexuals.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You thought?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh, I'm keeping up just fine. You laughably equated homosexuality with slavery. And are still running from your false analogy fallacy, desperate to change the topic.

If not for fallacies your posts would be little more than punctuation.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And you would deny rights to single mothers.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Link.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says who? Quote me.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh, you can read......


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nobody here is denying any rights to single mothers.  That you're upset because two sisters you apparently know and want to be married are unable to because of the law.....boohoo.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Laughing....now you're trying to deny saying this?



Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > *Newflash:  *Society has accepted homosexuality in the US as was proven with the Supreme Court legalizing ssm.
> ...



If even you are going to dismiss your false analogy fallacies as useless flotsam, surely you can understand why we treat your fallacies the same way.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing.

Deal?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Just took to the title of this thread to see the motivation of Pop and Boss

"Its easier to condemn homosexuality"

To understand the motivation behind their posts.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You do realize the Supreme Court once approved slavery, right? Then overturned that, right?

You do have a hard time keeping up. 

I equated the courts rulings dimwit.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Just took to the title of this thread to see the motivation of Pop and Boss
> 
> "Its easier to condemn homosexuality"
> 
> To understand the motivation behind their posts.



Point? I came in to answer a same sex marriage post. 

Funny, by you being here make you want to condemn homosexuality?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You do realize that slavery isn't homosexuality nor homosexuality slavery, right? That your false analogy fallacy is still right behind you? And you're still desperately running from it?

Is there anything to your argument but false analogy fallacies?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Lol, the same argument was made by those YOU refer to as bigots about SSM!

You simply can't make this chit up folks!


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The butthurt runs deep in you young Skywalker.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Just took to the title of this thread to see the motivation of Pop and Boss
> ...



No you didn't. You came here insisting what we were talking about was the 'purpose of marriage', when no one was discussing it.

And then predictably tried to shift the topic to your bizarro incest fallacy. 

There's nothing else to you.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And now personal insults. Gee, how did I know that was coming. 

Can we just wrap this up? You've done your incest fallacy schtick. You're now starting the personal insults. Next is your predictable rout, tail between your legs.

Chop, chop.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Just took to the title of this thread to see the motivation of Pop and Boss
> ...



I came here to refute bigots like you and Boss- bigots who want to deny equal rights to homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Hmmm yeah- that is exactly what you just did- you just pulled that crap right out of your ass.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Please show how two heterosexual sisters, wanting marriage in order to better raise their children is incestuous. 

You sir are plain ass strange.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Try making sense.  It help move discussions forward.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That you failed to comprehend what was being explained to you does not equate to anyone denying rights to single mothers.  It is plain to see that you either don't understand the explanations or you have painted yourself into a corner and are now just posting deflections. 

Prove that anyone posted anything that resembled denying single mothers their rights or admit that your red herring didn't work out for you.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What part of me saying your post was just you making crap up- putting words in other people's mouth's- pulling crap out of your ass- did you have a hard time understanding?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Did I say those groups had rights denied? Nope, just they are shunned and not jailed.
> 
> And......



Yeah......and apples grow on trees.  What's your point?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I have, but thanks for trying to get me to repeat myself again and again and again

So let's try again. How are two heterosexual sisters, wishing to marry so they can better raise their children a societal harm?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Did I say those groups had rights denied? Nope, just they are shunned and not jailed.
> ...



You googled that fact, didn't you?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Again with the false analogy fallacy. Same sex marriage isn't incest. Making your direct comparison yet another fallacy.

But then you did directly equate same sex marriage with slavery. So with blunders like that, what should I expect?


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The crap part, which is most all you ever post.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Nope, didn't, but then again, you're perspective is suspect, so Ya got that goin for ya


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> So let's try again. How are two heterosexual sisters, wishing to marry so they can better raise their children a societal harm?




And it has been answered over and over......obviously you are unable to read.

There is no societal harm as far as I'm concerned, but it is against the law.  It has been told to you that if you want to change the law, you have to do whatever you have to do to convince others and/or write your Congressman.  Do you really want me to go hunt the posts where that was told to you?

You are now just deflecting......you have painted yourself into a corner and the only thing you can do is repeat your asinine question over and over and ignore the responses.

If that isn't the definition of insanity, I don't know what is.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you're denying saying this?



Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > *Newflash:  *Society has accepted homosexuality in the US as was proven with the Supreme Court legalizing ssm.
> ...



Laughing....why deny it? Its not like your post magically disappears because its now inconvenient to your argument. 

And just FYI.....homosexuality isn't slavery. Or incest.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Another attempt at deflection?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Deflection. False analogy fallacies. Strawmen.

If not for fallacies, his posts would be little more than punctuation.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

_and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage_

Congratulations  for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned
> 
> Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans
> 
> ...



And here I thought that he actually knew two sisters that were being denied their rights, who figured out if they got married they would be able to get those benefits, and professed to him that they were not interested in sex and he thought that maybe we could change the law for him.........


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned
> 
> Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans
> 
> ...



Such a simplistic view. 

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I said that, of course, but it speaks of how the courts have changed existing law, not that slavery and homosexuality are the same. 

But to an OCD afflicted mind like yours, it's not surprising you would.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned
> ...



I know many single mothers, related or not, that could benefit greatly from this. If you don't it simply proves you don't get out much.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




Then you're wasting your time explaining it to me and others here.......when you could be doing something to help them.  Have you written your Congressman?  Have you started a petition?  I think you're making the whole shit up, but then, that appears to be the only thing that you can use to try and justify why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed and it didn't really work out for you.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned
> ...



And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

_and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage_

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You cited slavery when we were speaking of homosexuality. Your false analogy was ludicrious and you know it. Just as your homosexuality to incest equivalence is.

You're trolling. And you'll be treated as troll. As you should be.


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



How is two same sex hetro sisters marrying an incestuous relationship?

I've asked you this many times. Still no answer


----------



## Pop23 (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I once mentioned a Red bus in the same sentence as PBR. That does not mean that the Red Bus was a cheap beer. 

But I guess those afflicted with OCD might make that crazy connection.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It has been answered........more than once.


Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So let's try again. How are two heterosexual sisters, wishing to marry so they can better raise their children a societal harm?
> ...


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It wasn't the same sentence. It was a reply with those lovely words 'just like' where you equated homosexuality with slavery.



Pop23 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > *Newflash:  *Society has accepted homosexuality in the US as was proven with the Supreme Court legalizing ssm.
> ...



But keep backpedalling. It makes me giggle.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You do realize that it is already, right? Homosexuality is accepted as normal. Welcome to the 21st Century, Rip.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You got the answer, you just don't like it.


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Just point and laugh. I like showing Pops posts to sane people when they don't believe folks like him actually exist.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned
> 
> Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans
> 
> ...



Isn't it amazing how, even back then, they didn't mention the possibility of leading to same-sex marriage? That was such a wild and ridiculous consideration they didn't even bring it up. Yet look where we are today?  Loving v. State of Virginia wasn't that long ago. Once you start to remove moral constraints and parameters, it doesn't take long to get to any extreme. 

I mean... here you are, justifying homosexual marriage on the same basis as civil rights for blacks. Just as in the future, there will be people justifying other sexual behavior on the basis of civil rights for gays. Oh, it's not the same thing, you will say... but homosexual and interracial marriage aren't the same thing either. As you demonstrate, they don't have to be the same thing to be exploited. 

The Loving decision regarding bans on interracial marriage were about equal access to something other similar groups had access to. Blacks were specifically being denied a right afforded to others on the basis of skin color. No one has been denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. It is not a requirement for you to be heterosexual. It's not prohibited from homosexuals.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned
> ...



Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned
> ...



'moral constraints and parameters'- like inter-racial marriage bans. 

If you want to think that Loving v. Virginia led to Obergefell- I wouldn't disagree with that. 

But neither Loving or Obergefell have led to incestuous marriage- which is what you and the State of Virginia were arguing. 

Congratulations  to Boss- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?



Certain Christians believed it was at the time because that is what their preacher told them. It was a different time. The immutable truth is, it's impossible to not have an interracial marriage, unless maybe you're a Jew. We're ALL mixed race. But there was no discrimination happening for Cherokee-Cubans marrying Asian-Scandinavians. It was a specific law intended to prevent blacks from marrying whites. This is why it was struck down, it violated the rights of black people. It didn't violate them because it didn't allow them to do what they wanted, it violated them because it discriminated against them on the basis of their race. 

But again... look at the "moral outrage" argument made back then... they didn't even bring up the possibility of this leading to men marrying men. That shows you how completely out of whack this idea is. No one ever dreamed that we would redefine marriage as a result of striking down bans on interracial marriage. If the people who were "morally outraged" at the time had brought up this as a possibility, they would have been dismissed as total delusional nutbags... which they were already, but that would have made them look even more ridiculous.... even THEY knew better than to be so cray-cray!


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I am arguing now that we've redefined marriage on the basis of sexuality and given authority to the court to determine what we call marriage, all bets are off. We have no more control over what is to come in the future, it will be decided for us whether we agree or not. The same legal arguments made for gay marriage can be made for any number of other sexual proclivities and the same "equal protection" has to be applied if we're to be consistent with the Constitution. So while it may be easy to dismiss these things now, you're not going to have that option in the future. You've ceded that power to the courts and since you advocate for a secular system, the court will rule in a secular manner, meaning your concepts and ideas of "morality" are gone. We're on the road the Romans took and there ain't no turning back.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And those were the same arguments made in opposition to mixed race marriage bans

You were the one who referenced 'moral constraints' in relation to Loving v. Virginia.

Congratulations  to Boss- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.


.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I do truly hope that the courts continue to rule in a 'secular' manner- as opposed to ruling in a faith based manner.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?
> ...



Yeah- they just said it would ending mixed race marriage bans would lead to incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You know- just like you say ending same gender marriage bans will lead to the same thing.

Congratulations for echoing the arguments made by the racists.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?
> ...



Again, you're making up an imaginary version of history. It was overturned as it violated the rights of a white man and a black woman. Richard and Mildred Loving.

With interracial marriage bans being the 'moral constraints' that you insist were knocked down. What possible 'moral constraint' is created by interracial marriage bans?

You didn't actually answer my question.

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it? Its been half a century of contradiction of your assertion.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You appear to be mistaken.

Again.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved.
> ...


That's quite the fervent imagination you've got there.

... oh ... and you're still fucking deranged.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why would you think that someone who says this is 'deranged'?

Boss:
_One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges._

Imagine how ridiculous it would sound if I said:

One of these days, i look forward for some Christian lobby to push for a law which makes it against the law for gay men to have consensual sex in private.

Oh wait......Christians already did that.......and only the Supreme Court recognized that those Christians were violating the rights of Americans.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



WOW!  Talk about PROPHECY!

Thats he thing about lowering standards, it NEVER results in higher performance... and always promotes decay and degeneracy.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well if anyone has an intimate experience with decay and degeneracy it is you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> _One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges._



Is Boss a Little Boy?  I didn't realize that... . 

The reason I ask, is that _One of these days, the gay lobby will push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in the mouth or ass of little boys so as to accommodate their sexual urges.
_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....
> 
> .....why didn't it?



It did... it simply lead to such, through the legal pretense of marriage by Homosexuals.  

But hey... such is the nature of slippery slopes.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> you're ... deranged.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > you're ... deranged.


Moans the idiot who thinks of himself as a sexual deviant.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....
> ...



It didn't. Its been 50 years since Loving v. Virginia. Not a single state has recognized incest marriage. Its been 10 years since same sex marriage was first legalized in the US. Still not a single state has recognized incest marriage.

Perhaps you mean 'will lead' is a geological sense. Where the time frame you're talking about span several ice ages or the collision of continents and such. 

Remember, Keyes.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Who believes he speaks for God and has elaborate murderous fantasies about gay people being killed.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



It doesn't matter if the same concerns were raised, the situations are different. Loving was about discrimination based on race. There was no discrimination against gay people, they were allowed to do what everyone was allowed to do, they wanted to do something different and call it the same thing. That's not discrimination unless it's also discrimination to prohibit hebephiles or zoophiles from doing what they do and calling it marriage. We don't have the right to do whatever we want and call that marriage or scream discrimination.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I did not say that interracial bans were moral constraints, you're putting words in my mouth. I explained how people of the time thought it was a moral issue, I didn't say I agreed with them or that the ruling shouldn't have ever been made. I guess those are your assumptions but I've not said that. 

I don't have to defend the arguments made by those who opposed interracial marriages. I am not going to sit here and allow you to turn this into Boss debating on behalf of racist bans on interracial marriage. If you think I am going to let you get away with doing that, you're more goofy than you look. 

It was overturned because "marriage" was a real thing that people did but black people weren't allowed to do with white people because of their skin color. Gay marriage is not a real thing, it's not something anyone was allowed to do. There is not a discrimination when you're not being allowed to do something no one else is allowed to do.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriage was a real thing that people did but women weren't allowed to do with women because of their gender.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That doesn't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. Gays did not have the same rights as others; who unlike gays, were legally allowed to marry the one they love. Which despite your painful ignorance, is the primary reason most people marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > _One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges._
> ...



Yes- I am sure that deviants like you do believe that- because of course- you have no concept of what consent. is.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....
> ...



You are still upset about the slippery slope that allowed black men to marry white women.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.

Just like you- Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted. 

Just like men could marry anyone that they wanted- as long as it was not another man.

You are just repeating the arguments of the State of Virginia.

But after all- you must still be upset that the Supreme Court told the State of Virginia that they could not ban mixed race marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Just like you are now arguing that gay marriage bans are a moral issue.

So was Loving v.  Virginia a good ruling or not?


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The State of Virginia actually declared that interracial marriage did not exist. 

Really- legally the State of Virginia said that mixed race 'marriage' in another State legally never existed- because to Virginia- mixed race marriage was not a real thing.

And of course Virginia argued- just like you- that they were not discriminating against anyone.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

No, mixed race marriage WAS a thing, virtually every marriage is mixed race. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and that is a real thing. A homosexual relationship is also a real thing, it's just not a marriage. Homosexuality is not "practicing medicine" ...we can't start handing out Doctor's licenses to gay people because they think they deserve them by being gay. There is no such thing as "gay medicine" and we can't make it a thing because there would be severe consequences. Homosexuality is not "air traffic control" and we don't allow people to be air traffic controllers on the basis of them being gay. It's not discrimination... if someone wants to meet the criteria of being an air traffic controller and that person is gay, there is nothing prohibiting that and no law against it. But we don't have a thing called "gay air traffic control" where people are allowed to pretend they are air traffic controllers because they are gay.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.



It doesn't matter because the argument is different. Why are you not comprehending that? If you walk into court to defend yourself of a crime you didn't commit and you state to the judge that you are "not guilty" ...the judge doesn't accuse you of "echoing exactly what the last defended said!"


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 1, 2015)

While I initially gravitate to the idea that incest leads to sick kids, my research finds that's not always the case.  When one looks at the "science" of incest, the issue against it is mostly the health of any child they might have.  This isn't /always/ the case, some siblings are genetically different enough to /not/ produce congenitally disordered children.  Today we can scan blood and dna enough to pretty much /know/ if these siblings would be likely to have, or not have, that kind of health issue in a child due to mater/paternity - we could do the same with any couples child, and actually do on stuff like blood Ph incompatibilities and what not.

Now, my first thought, is okay we need to prevent folks from making kids that have congenital disorders, but then I think about people and it just falls apart... 

Here is a list of things that are known to cause congenital disorders:

Drinking while pregnant
Smoking while pregnant (and that's by the mother OR the father btw - paternal smoking prior to conception has been linked to DNA mutations in the germ line)
Toxic exposure (drugs, prescription meds, lead poisoning, supposedly healthy supplements, toxins in the water or in food, etc.)
Bacterial Infections (both during pregnancy and in newborns as well)
Lack of proper nutrients
Physical restraint (this wuld be stuff like mom falling on her stomach, or even if mom has a "badly" shaped womb)
Genetic mutation (while this does include incestual conception, it also includes spontaneous and unrelated mutations that occur for no known reason)
Socioeconomic status (this ranges from race to money; aka if the mom gets prenatal care and so forth, even stress is attributed to fetal disorders)
Radiation (Fall out is bad, too many x-rays are bad, too much sun is bad, etc.)
Father's age (fathers contribute proportionally more DNA)
Unknown (Approximately 65% of congenital disorders have no scientifically known cause)
I don't recall stopping any heterosexual marriages because of any of the above /known/ risk factors to their /potential/ offspring. 

Pops is right, we cannot really justify stopping incest marriages anymore, though it's not because of the allowance of gay marriage, but because of the advance of medical science.  If some sibling couple took their right to incest marriage to the supreme, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they won, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it made head way toward having incest removed from being illegal.  On the other hand, I don't see a huge rash of incest couples rushing the court house...


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.



But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.
> ...


no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.



So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.
> ...


words meant to accommodate theyre to communicate, and yes any word can be changed to match our updated levels of communication. pretty simple.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And for the record, you are quoting my response to someone arguing about the Loving ruling. I'm pointing out that the Loving ruling did not redefine what marriage is. It remained the union of a man and woman as it always had been, that didn't change. The only thing Loving changed was the ability to discriminate based on skin color. 

Also... to correct your ignorant ass... WE are our OWN authority! We most certainly DO get to decide whatever the fuck we want to decide as a society who governs itself, that's part of the beauty of it. We're not ruled by an activist court. We don't live in homosexual kingdom. We're not obligated to follow whatever idiocy you dream up in your vacant little pinheads. You don't have the right to decide what constitutes an advancement of society or whether it has met that criteria.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



No... fundamentally, words cannot be changed to fit our desires or all of civilization crumbles because... literally, nothing means anything anymore!  --IDIOT!


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


your arbitrary decision to define the word whatever the fuck you want to define it as has no bearing on how society deems it.....and you're now old and in a few more years, venturing toward the prehistoric definition. awwww, should I have a sad for you?


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.

fag = homosexual
fag = cigarette

get a clue


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2015)

Ignorant persons such as Boss are the reason we need Historians to interpret ancient books such as the bible. Much is misinterpreted by the literal translation - why? Because some words meant something completely different within the context of their respective societies at the time. Words' meanings are simple, arbitrary value judgments and they have ALWAYS changed throughout human history.....unless you're ignorant but - everyone reading this thread already sort of knew that of you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> your arbitrary decision to define the word whatever the fuck you want to define it as has no bearing on how society deems it.....and you're now old and in a few more years, venturing toward the prehistoric definition. awwww, should I have a sad for you?



I did not make an  arbitrary decision and didn't define the word marriage. It was already defined and had been defined as the union of a man and woman for thousands of years. You are the one who wants to arbitrarily change that. It has no bearing on what society accepts.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2015)

Well yea, it does. Legally, and socially. Again, too bad for ya. : (


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.



Obviously not true because marriage is still the union of a man and woman. 

Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like here? Nothing can mean anything if we can change it to mean anything we want. You say "of course it can, it means what we say at the time" but it doesn't have to mean that and we don't all say it means the same thing at the same time... so it can't really mean anything... nothing can. We can just change whatever it means, or some of us can. There is no escaping your absence of logic here. 

But then again... here we go with the debate about the concept of "Consent" and what it means... GT believes that "Consent" is simply a word we can attribute whatever meaning we please at the time... it doesn't have to mean what it means. He is making that argument better than I would ever dare to try. 

Some of you might think it's ridiculous anyone would ever redefine what consent means but here is GT professing that is exactly what we can do if we don't like what it means and want to change it.  If you disagree with him, you're old and out of touch and it doesn't really matter anyway because you'll soon be dead.  Frankly, I am glad that I'll be dead and won't have to watch society collapse into abject idiocy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You realize laws change, since you and I agree that there would be no societal harm, then with the recent change in the law, an unjust law exists.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I gave examples of laws that were overturned you simpleton.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> No, mixed race marriage WAS a thing, virtually every marriage is mixed race. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and that is a real thing. A homosexual relationship is also a real thing, it's just not a marriage. Homosexuality is not "practicing medicine" ...we can't start handing out Doctor's licenses to gay people because they think they deserve them by being gay. There is no such thing as "gay medicine" and we can't make it a thing because there would be severe consequences. Homosexuality is not "air traffic control" and we don't allow people to be air traffic controllers on the basis of them being gay. It's not discrimination... if someone wants to meet the criteria of being an air traffic controller and that person is gay, there is nothing prohibiting that and no law against it. But we don't have a thing called "gay air traffic control" where people are allowed to pretend they are air traffic controllers because they are gay.



What makes my marriage any less "real" than yours (if you're married that is)?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sure, that's why an overwhelming number of parents hope their children grow to be homosexual. 

Good lord, get a grip on your OCD.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



There is no harm then.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Poor Pops...doesn't realize that the country doesn't hate gays like he does anymore.







Time to check your Depends old man...and welcome to the 21st Century. Lots of cool stuff going on.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> What makes my marriage any less "real" than yours (if you're married that is)?



Well if you mean what is the difference between two homosexuals engaging in homosexual relations and calling themselves married as opposed to a man and woman united in holy matrimony, I think the answer is self-evident and needs no clarification. 

What's the difference between a mime pretending to be trapped inside a box and a person who was kidnapped and buried alive in a box? Both of them are real things.... can't deny that. There might even be some similar connection between the two, but they're never going to be the same thing and society is never going to accept them as the same thing. You can call them the same, have the SCOTUS rule they are the same, make all the long-winded rants calling people despicable names and insulting them every way you can think of... it's *STILL* not going to be accepted as the same.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Now show the poll showing what sexuality parents hope their children become. 

You have reluctant tolerance now, that's about it. Tolerance and acceptance are far different concepts.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > What makes my marriage any less "real" than yours (if you're married that is)?
> ...



So you can't actually ascribe any differences, it's just a "feeling" you have. 

That feeling is bigotry and homophobia.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > What makes my marriage any less "real" than yours (if you're married that is)?
> ...



Her marriage does not include intercourse. It's kinda simple really


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



 I suppose it makes homophobic bigots feel better to think that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



LOL!

Yes... popularity is what counts in determining morality.  

We know this because a majority of Germans eventually came to find Jews to be disease ridden vermin, thus morality made starving jews to death, gassing them with poison, or just shooting them for one's personal entertainment ... _perfectly fine._

Now in reality, we (sound human minds) know that this fallacious (perverse) mindset is false... because the same person who is claiming that morality is determined by popularity... was in here claiming otherwise ten minutes ago... when popularity had homosexuality as being _unacceptable.
_
What's more, if the same person were a Jew and living in 1930s Germany it would not have found popularity to be much of a comfort in determining that it was less than human, thus worthy of being stripped of all human trappings.

But, this is the nature of evil... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> So you can't actually ascribe any differences, it's just a "feeling" you have.



Marriage IS: _the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> homophobic bigots



Two things: 

First, there is LITERALLY: NO Such thing as a Homophobe.

Second: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST thing about the word "Bigot", is that the use of the word, when directed toward another, is a precise demonstration of the meaning of the word.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> homophobic bigots





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Two things:
> 
> First, there is LITERALLY: NO Such thing as a Homophobe.
> 
> Second: The ABSOLUTE COOLEST thing about the word "Bigot", is that the use of the word, when directed toward another, is a precise demonstration of the meaning of the word.




1) there's no such thing as being irrationally afraid of homosexuality?  is that what you'd like people to believe?

2) bigots often try to weasel out of being responsible for their bigotry, weasel.
_
BIGOT_. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.
> ...


Why are you not comprehending the primary reason people marry is because they love each other and want to make the life long commitment to the person they love?


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.
> ...


Uh, no it isn't in the U.S.. it's the union of two consenting people over the age of consent.

Denial is not a river.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2015)

Lol boss is one of the batshits, huh?  tell us again how words dont and havent been redefined throughout human history and i have a nice piece of oceanfront property to sell ya boss!!! Paypal me the downpayment and youll be all set you genius, you!


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And what does the state or a piece of paper from the government, OR... a SCOTUS ruling have to do with that? As I have said before... I attended a gay wedding in 1986... in rural Alabama! There was no redneck sheriff there to stop it... no county clerk there with her bible forbidding it. Just two beautiful gay people who were surrounded by supporting friends and family, enjoying a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a peaceful southern mountainside. 1986... Rural Alabama.  

Strangely enough, it is this very couple who I credit for my personal views on this issue.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Not during the Loving decision. Can you not keep up with the conversation, idiot?


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Imbecile.... you said, _"*marriage remains * the union of a man and a woman."_ That has nothing to do with Loving and it's not true in the U.S.

You don't understand what you write.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The state sanctions that. That is what it has to do with it. Sadly, you cannot grasp the reality that the primary reason people marry is out of love and commitment to each other.


----------



## mdk (Oct 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > So you can't actually ascribe any differences, it's just a "feeling" you have.
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> No, mixed race marriage WAS a thing, virtually every marriage is mixed race. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and that is a real thing. A homosexual relationship is also a real thing.



Again- you just are parroting the arguments of the State of Virginia.

Just like you argue that same gender marriage is not a real marriage- the State of Virginia argued- and actually codified into law- that there was no interracial marriage- any such attempt was legally null and void- and a criminal offense to boot. 

And this bring us down to the intellectual dishonesty of your arguments. 

Your arguments are as bigoted- and as invalid- as the State of Virginia's when they argued in support of a mixed race ban.

The only difference of course- is when the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Virginia, most of Americans agreed with Virginia- not with the Supreme Court.

When the court ruled overturning bans on same gender marriage, the court was actually following public opinion- most Americans are in favor of marriage equality for Americans who are gay.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.
> ...



Marriage now is the union of two people- regardless of race- regardless of gender. 

After Obergefell and Loving v. Virginia.

I once again will point out how your arguments parrot the arguments of the STate of Virginia


*Justice Stewart:* That is—that was the very purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, coming as it did after the—in the wake of the Civil War.

*Mr. McIlwaine:* That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.
> ...



But this isn't a court- in court- your argument has already been found to be invalid. 

I am just pointing out that you are arguing for discrimination in marriage exactly as the State of Virginia argued for discrimination in marriage- both of you proclaiming that you aren't arguing for discrimination at all- when clearly that is exactly what you and the State of Virginia are doing


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Pops is right, we cannot really justify stopping incest marriages anymore, though it's not because of the allowance of gay marriage, but because of the advance of medical science.  If some sibling couple took their right to incest marriage to the supreme, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they won, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it made head way toward having incest removed from being illegal.  On the other hand, I don't see a huge rash of incest couples rushing the court house...



If that was the only issue you would be correct.

And frankly, if that was the only issue that a State tried to defend a ban on incestuous marriage the State would likely lose.

But as I have pointed out- others have put forth other reasons for a ban on incestuous marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Clearly you are still upset about the activist court over turning the bans on mixed race marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

And we do not live in a Christian kingdom, where the prejudices of some Christians get to ignore the rights of Americans they don't approve of.  You don't give a damn what others think- only what your little cabal of homophobes thinks.

The majority of Americans favor the right of Americans who happen to be gay being able to marry each other.

You are just telling that majority to fuck off.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Poor Boss.

Convinced if gays are allowed to marry each other that civilization will 'crumble'. 

His ignorance of the history of marriage is only matched by his lack of faith in Americans.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > your arbitrary decision to define the word whatever the fuck you want to define it as has no bearing on how society deems it.....and you're now old and in a few more years, venturing toward the prehistoric definition. awwww, should I have a sad for you?
> ...



Marriage has always been defined as more than that. 

For thousands of years marriage was defined as the union of a man and many women. You reject that tradition- and you want to redefine marriage to ignore that kind of marriage. 

Marriage has changed dramatically even in the last 100 years. Divorce is now legal and acceptable. Women have equal rights within a marriage. Whites can marry blacks. People can marry in churches- and can marry completely outside the church.

You just are upset that homosexuals are no longer being discriminated against- just as Virginia was determined to continue discrimination against mixed race couples.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.
> ...



_Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like here? _

How ironic from the writer of the OP who wrote telling us how he believes homosexuals will be trying to pass laws to allow them to rape him in public. 

Clearly he doesn't realize what a fucking idiot he has been from the OP.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop can go ahead and marry his sister now. His life's dream fulfilled. 

Then Boss can force Kate Upton to marry him- because he believes in the sanctity of marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you have neither. 

Just bigotry towards homosexuals. 

And butthurt that most of America no longer shares your bigotry.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.



Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.
> ...



Do you honestly believe that words never change meaning?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Think that? That's reality


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.
> ...



Same sex coupling had never produced a single child.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.
> ...



You name a single child ever produced by a same sex coupling.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




You really don't understand the law, do you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yeah, we know, you can't argue the point. Nice deflection though.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I never produced a poll that had nothing to do with the matter to begin with. 

The question was acceptance, which homosexuals desire but will never obtain.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.
> ...



Do same sex couples seek artificial insemination due to one of the partners reproductive disability?

Funny, I don't think so. 

See the difference simpleton?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.
> 
> I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.
> 
> Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.



That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Why do you want to harm their children- does your bigotry extend to wanting to harm their children also?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..



Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals. 

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.



Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Never from you- that is clear.

From me- no problem.

I have no problem accepting homosexuals, or African Americans or Jews or Christians or Mormons or Polish or square dancers.

You do.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Same sex couples have produced children- just like many heterosexual couples.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Is it just that you want to harm the children of gay couples?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.
> ...



I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what? 

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman. 

If not, then you have an equal protection problem. 

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law. 

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



What exactly are these children being denied. A piece of paper?

Single parents understand that they are not married either. Are you advocating forced marriage for the sake of the children?

You are odd


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Nope, odd little dude, many of my best friends are former Morman, born again Christian, African American square dancers.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.
> ...



Gays married long before the law changed bigot


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..
> ...



Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I am just in agreement with Chief Justice Kennedy.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are the one who is fine with harm coming to children- if their parents happen to be gay.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



As I said-

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



As I said

Never from you- that is clear.

From me- no problem.

I have no problem accepting homosexuals, or African Americans or Jews or Christians or Mormons or Polish or square dancers.

You do.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Ever consider that it is not the marital status that creates the harm?

And look at the world their parents will leave them. Because of equal protection, some day they'll be able to marry their uncles!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I don't think most of the world wants sibling marriage. 

You want our thanks for that?

You are looney


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That is what you keep claiming. 

Because you ignore what anyone else says. 

Wisconsin marriage law allows first cousins to marry but only if they can prove that they procreate together.
But Wisconsin marriage law does not allow siblings to marry-  even if they can prove that they cannot procreate together.

Your straw man won't dance by itself.

Your bigotry towards homosexuals continues.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I am just in agreement with Chief Justice Kennedy.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are the one who is fine with harm coming to children- if their parents happen to be gay.

Just because their parents happen to be gay.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument. 

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop and his straw man.

Meanwhile

As I said-

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You are aware that not long ago Wisconsin law prohibited same sex marriage. 

You opened the door, now equal protection will rear its ugly head. 

Dimwit


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You can spout nonsense till the cows come home. 

You created a very ugly situation and won't own up to it. 

What an infant


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Irrelevant

Just as an idiot like you are.

Americans who are gay are getting married, their children are getting the protections of legal marriage, and life is wonderful

Except for butt hurt bigots like you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What a sad little bigot you are.

Pissed off because no one will dance with your straw man.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Whether or not there is sexual contact is not the only possible reason to prevent close relations marriages.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The state sanctions what... your life-long commitment or your love?


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Again- you just are parroting the arguments of the State of Virginia.
> 
> Just like you argue that same gender marriage is not a real marriage- the State of Virginia argued- and actually codified into law- that there was no interracial marriage- any such attempt was legally null and void- and a criminal offense to boot.
> 
> ...



Again, it doesn't matter if I am parroting the same arguments about a completely different issue. Because an argument was not sufficient in Case A, doesn't mean it is insufficient in Case B. Yes, Virginia argued there was no such thing as interracial marriage and the court found (correctly) that if the only difference was color of skin it violated the Civil Rights Act. 

The mixed-race ban did not apply to all races, it applied to blacks marrying whites specifically. The segregationists fought for it by arguing it was a moral religious issue and they were wrong. Public opinion doesn't matter with regard to what is right and wrong. You can't deny something allowed to others on the basis of skin color, that is wrong according to the Civil Rights Act, a law passed which states this precisely. 

So in Loving you have the court upholding the law and not changing marriage other than to desegregate it... In Ogeberfell you have an activist court lawlessly rewriting the definition of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals. These are not the same thing.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Again- you just are parroting the arguments of the State of Virginia.
> ...



LOL- you are hopeless. 

As I pointed out- your arguments are exactly the same as those of Virginia's- and for the exact same reasons.

You do not consider the discrimination you promote to be discrimination. 

The courts did the exact same thing in both Obergefell and Loving- they ruled on the constitutionality of State marriage laws.

And in both cases they found that the laws in question were unconstitutional.

So of course you call the court in the case of Obergefel an 'activist' court.

Just like every bigot who objected to Loving v. Virginia.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They can't answer your question because the truth is, you are correct. So they accuse you of making a "straw man" argument and proceed to ridicule and laugh at a notion that, when the time comes, they'll proudly stand up and make the arguments for. You can read it in their replies now... all it will take is a few 'very special episodes' of Oprah... Ellen... Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopie... Suddenly, when it becomes the "in-thing" these loony tunes will be all over it. They have no morals... they are sheep waiting to be led.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL- you are hopeless.
> 
> As I pointed out- your arguments are exactly the same as those of Virginia's- and for the exact same reasons.



No, YOU are hopeless. As I pointed out, it's two different issues so it doesn't matter if the arguments are the same, which they aren't. 

*And in both cases they found that the laws in question were unconstitutional.*

Yes, but in Loving, they based this on the law and without fundamentally changing the institution of marriage. In Ogeberfell they have no legal basis for their decision and it fundamentally changes what marriage is.  The discussion we are now having is not over whether or not SCOTUS made a ruling that something was unconstitutional. I think even the most retarded person on this forum can comprehend that SCOTUS made the ruling in Ogeberfell.... that's not debatable. Obviously, there are two sides, one who thinks it was an appropriate ruling and another who thinks it wasn't... again, not something debatable.  And yet... you continue to want to fall back on this by default whenever the argument isn't going your way.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 1, 2015)

[QUOTE="Boss, post: 12447750, member:]

Again, it doesn't matter if I am parroting the same arguments about a completely different issue. Because an argument was not sufficient in Case A, doesn't mean it is insufficient in Case B. Yes, Virginia argued there was no such thing as interracial marriage and the court found (correctly) that if the only difference was color of skin it violated the Civil Rights Act. [/quote]

Where was the CRA mentioned in the Loving decision? 



> The mixed-race ban did not apply to all races, it applied to blacks marrying whites specifically.



Wrong again: (wiki)

All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.



> The segregationists fought for it by arguing it was a moral religious issue and they were wrong.



Huh...much like anti gay bigots do today...imagine that.



> Public opinion doesn't matter with regard to what is right and wrong. You can't deny something allowed to others on the basis of skin color, that is wrong according to the Civil Rights Act, a law passed which states this precisely.



It certainly didn't with anti miscegenation laws. 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when Loving was ruled upon.



> So in Loving you have the court upholding the law and not changing marriage other than to desegregate it... In Ogeberfell you have an activist court lawlessly rewriting the definition of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals. These are not the same thing.



In both cases the fundamental right to marry was recognized (also in Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safely...neither case having to do with race).


----------



## Mertex (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.
> ...



Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"?  That sounds like a good word.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Once again- you sound just like the State of Virginia- when Virginia said legalizing mixed race marriages would lead to polygamy and incest.

Not a surprise- bigotry is bigotry.  Bigots are bigots.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL- you are hopeless.
> ...



In both cases they based their decision on the U.S. Constitution. 

In both cases they affirmed the right of Americans to marry.

Virginia said that would change the institution of marriage- because Virginia said mixed race marriages were not marriages at all.

Just like you say same gender marriages are not marriages.

Bigots are bigots.

Whether its because of race- or because of sexual preference.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



In essence, yes... My argument has always been regarding the importance of traditional marriage and what many people have a fundamental connection to in a cultural as well as a religious way. I don't feel that is being respected and I think that is intentional. This issue is not really about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, it's about tearing down moral and traditional values. It's a big steamy dump on the Church. It's a chance for Socialist Seculars to flex some political muscle and act righteous in the face of indignity. 

My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US!  I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all. 

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That's what marriage is. It can't be something else simply because we wish to accommodate people's sexuality. I understand. I sympathize. I just don't agree that's what we have to do and I think it's a terrible mistake we are making that will come back to haunt us. 

And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I think you are very wrong about most people having no problem with removing the word marriage from government.  I think the idea of marriage as a state sanctioned institution is far too intrinsic to people's thinking at this point.  It would take some time for opinions about the importance of using that word in legal partnerships as well as religious ones to change.

How did the Obergefell ruling 'establish the court as the arbiter of morality for us all'?  Particularly, how were none of the USSC ruling of the past in any way morality based but this one was?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



All of which can, and do exist with non related marriages. 

Not seeing how that will apply but I am willing to listen.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Take a break Looney Tune, go do something you consider fun, like interior decorating.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Exposing bigots and perverts like you is what I consider to be fun.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop is willing to 'listen' but just not willing to 'hear'.

But whether you ask or not- he will trot out his incest straw man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Who is this "US" you speak of?

You speak for no one but yourself.

You don't speak for the majority of Americans- you speak for your own particular point of view. 

But you have every right to try to convince 'US' that we should abolish legal marriage. 

Personally, I think the current solution is as 'respectful' as your proposed solution- and far simpler. After all- you want to deny legal marriage to every American. I want Americans to be able to marry, regardless of their race, or gender.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.

Remember- its is the Courts who said that morality legislation imposed by Christians which told Americans what kind of sex that we could have in our bedrooms was unconstitutional. 

It was the Courts which said that morality legislation imposed by Christians to ban contraception was unconstitutional.

Remember- it is the Christian majority which passes legislation to tell Americans what is morally acceptable and what is not- and the courts have been the one saying such laws are unconstitutional.

Your ignorance of history is profound.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.



No, you're more of a fundamentalist wacko.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You speak for no one but yourself.



I speak for millions who reject changing the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexual behavior. The problem is, you're a liberal. All liberals believe that the entire country agrees with them... all it ever takes is a bogus poll showing some majority somewhere... that translates to the entire country marching in lockstep to whatever crazy idea the liberal is endorsing.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



^^^^futher proof of OCD.  

Gotta laugh at the pervert comment. You can't make this chit up folks


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Sure Francis, sure


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Birth defects can and do happen in children born of non-familial parents.  The question is the degree of danger involved. 

As I've said, it's far less clear with sibling relationships, but when it comes to parents and children, there seems to be far too great a danger of the authority figure (parent) having too much influence over the decisions of the child.  In the same way teachers are not allowed to have romantic or sexual relations with their students, even if they are of age, having a parent and child in a romantic relationship creates a larger than normal danger that one member of the relationship has too much control over the decisions of the other.  It's not an absolute rule, but as with other laws, generalizations are made.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 1, 2015)

Like I said, they'd have to get past the law against incest marriage.  Thing is, I don't see a hell of a lot of people pounding the doors of the court to legalize it...

Still has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with SSM.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yet, especially since the latest ruling, a ruling that was most concerned about the granting of finacial benefits, it seems that the concern of birth defects is a bit absurd. 

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp. 

That's why we start with same sex hetro siblings. There is no sexual contact with hetros, and they are similarily situated to a non related same sex couple. 

Understand, there are no requirements under marriage laws for sexual contact, faithfulness or even love, so what's the point of not allowing hetro siblings from the rights and benefits of marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Like I said, they'd have to get past the law against incest marriage.  Thing is, I don't see a hell of a lot of people pounding the doors of the court to legalize it...
> 
> Still has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with SSM.



The door doesn't swing open until the same sex ruling comes down, so indeed it does.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand. 

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.
> 
> I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.
> 
> Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.


Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.
> ...



No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today. 

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage. 

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest. 

You must be so proud.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the fucking deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not. 

You would exclude hetro's because gays would?  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with. 

You?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification. 

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge. 

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires. 

Where have we heard that argued before?


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage. 



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Too stupid. His question has been andwered. It doesn't become not answered because he ignores the answers he gets.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation. 

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have. 

Go ahead.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.




You're so fucking deranged,  it's entertaining. The war IS over. You're like the Japanese who kept fighting after we nuked them.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That's not my answer. I've given my answer. You either don't like it or you don't understand it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.


How sad you think that is all marriage is.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again with the because you say so chit.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.
> ...



Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That wasn't my answer either; proving it's not that you didn't like it -- you really didn:t understand it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works. 

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And you have zero clue as to what incest is. You seem to think incest can occur with no participating individuals. 

Again, seek help. You need it


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are fucking clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Of course it applies. Incest is illegal regardless of the make up of genders. You think it's the government's job to monitor a couple's bedroom to make sure they're not having sex?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So the law gave you more than a set of legal benefits? I suppose it gave you love? How nice for you. 

My relationship with my wife is none of your business dimwit, but the government added nothing to it except for a few useful benefits that helped us raise our kids. 

You?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Incest is an action dimwit. You have yet to provide an explanation as to how an act occurs between two individuals that have no desire for such an act?

Please quit deflecting and attempt an answer to your own assertion.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Looks like you've completely abandoned your idiocy that same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. After all the layers of your argument are peeled away, you're reduced to arguing that non-incestuous immediate family marriage should be legal.

Does this mean we've heard the last of your _incestuous marriage should be legal_ idiocy?


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Didn't say it was my business; nor do I want it to be. I'm just find it sad that your marriage is nothing more than a "set a benefits."


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh Dear, you caught me. 

So it appears that your idiocy over same sex Hetero marriage now being justified has disappeared ( until we get to equal protection, then it will likely rear its ugly head again).


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And yours has government issued love. 

Is that done with direct injection or through an IV drip?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things. 

How fun HUH?


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're fucking retarded.

The government issued no love into my marriage. That is supplied by my wife, my kids, myself and my family.

But that's ok, I don't expect someone whose own marriage is limited to just a "set of benefits" to understand that. Actually, I feel sorry for you that you don't have what I have. It truly is beautiful.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.


----------



## Mertex (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You still don't get it?  Nobody cares what you feel or what you think in this matter.  It has been settled.  You can whine and complain all you want, but unless you can get the majority of Americans to agree with you, you're just going to get an ulcer.  You have expressed your reasons for not accepting ssm, and some of us have countered with our reasons, but in the end it doesn't matter.  It is over and done.



> My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US!  I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.


Government isn't telling you what you can call marriage.  The Supreme Court just told us that people of the same sex are allowed to get married.  You can refrain from calling their marriage a "marriage" if it makes you feel better.  You are offering homosexuals the same kind of crap that racist people wanted to offer blacks.....separate but equal.  They want their union to be recognized as "marriage" and the Supreme Court who goes by the Constitution and is way more qualified in defining "law" saw that it was unconstitutional to deny them that right. 



> Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That's what marriage is. It can't be something else simply because we wish to accommodate people's sexuality. I understand. I sympathize. I just don't agree that's what we have to do and I think it's a terrible mistake we are making that will come back to haunt us.


You don't want government telling us what marriage is, but you feel important enough to be able to tell us what marriage is.  Marriage is the legal union of two people, now.  It may come back to haunt you....in fact I think it already is haunting you, but you can't say that for everyone, as the majority of Americans are okay with it.



> And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.



You have a big imagination.  I'm not excited by it nor am I appalled.  It doesn't matter to me, it doesn't affect me or my marriage.  The Bible says that we are to love our neighbor as ourself and you are forgetting that part of the Bible....you should love even homosexuals and want the same benefits for them that you get.  And just a reminder, the Bible doesn't apply to our government.  The constitution doesn't mention or quote the Bible....in fact, our founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that church and state needed to remain separate.   And the fact that the court has deemed same sex marriage as legal, I don't see how it has anything to do with your morality unless you feel that now you have to participate in homosexuality.  And you sound terribly afraid of the government....imagining that the government is going to go so far as to tell people what sexual positions they must use.....but you and your beliefs would probably like the government to go in to people's bedrooms and make sure no one is performing sodomy.  I bet you would be okay with that?


----------



## Mertex (Oct 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.
> ...



When you can't debate use ad hominem....


----------



## Mertex (Oct 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> so what's the point of not allowing hetro siblings from the rights and benefits of marriage.




You keep repeating that same mantra........if you feel so strongly about it you need to start a petition or file a lawsuit for the "sisters" you keep bringing up which you said you know and the court will have to consider it.  You can use your arguments with them that you have used here.

I know that you are using that as your counter to same sex marriage, when it isn't even comparable and I don't know what your purpose is.  It isn't like some of us have gone to great lengths to argue that we would not stand for two hetero sisters getting married....in fact, the same people that are whining about ssm would probably be the ones complaining that the two sisters shouldn't be allowed to get married.......or you would be saying that because same sex marriage was allowed, now all these other crazy situations are going to happen.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Well I think it remains to be seen if this is "over and done" and you should be careful underestimating your opposition. I think a lot of people do care what I think and share my viewpoint. I don't think you're going to find this any more "settled and over" than abortion. In fact, this is going to be challenged much more rigorously because it effects other rights of other people. 



> > My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US!  I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.
> 
> 
> Government isn't telling you what you can call marriage.  The Supreme Court just told us that people of the same sex are allowed to get married.  You can refrain from calling their marriage a "marriage" if it makes you feel better.  You are offering homosexuals the same kind of crap that racist people wanted to offer blacks.....separate but equal.  They want their union to be recognized as "marriage" and the Supreme Court who goes by the Constitution and is way more qualified in defining "law" saw that it was unconstitutional to deny them that right.



So it looks like your idea of "debate" is to simply contradict anything I say. Formulating the argument of "nuh-uh!" must take so much brain power! Perhaps you should take a break and go have a banana? 

Yes, the SCOTUS essentially redefined marriage. This is going to be a problem because of two groups of people. Those opposed, who will continue to fight this in every way they can. And, those who are totally for it and think it should extend much further. 

The SCOTUS *did not* go by the Constitution, and that's the whole problem here. The Constitution explicitly says things like this are the right of the people and states to decide. The case should have been turned down for lack of standing. It wasn't, they made a bad ruling, and now we'll face the consequences. You think it's over, I think it's just begun.  



> > Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That's what marriage is. It can't be something else simply because we wish to accommodate people's sexuality. I understand. I sympathize. I just don't agree that's what we have to do and I think it's a terrible mistake we are making that will come back to haunt us.
> 
> 
> You don't want government telling us what marriage is, but you feel important enough to be able to tell us what marriage is.  Marriage is the legal union of two people, now.  It may come back to haunt you....in fact I think it already is haunting you, but you can't say that for everyone, as the majority of Americans are okay with it.



The majority are NOT okay with this. I am really sorry that some poll you've drummed up is making you think that but it's just not the truth. It's interesting that in this paragraph you are admitting the definition of marriage is changed, completely in contradiction to what you said before. It is this redefinition of marriage that is going to be problematic. Pops is giving you examples and so have I, but you want to reject them with the brilliant and well-thought-out "nuh-uh!" argument. Unfortunately, the equal protection clause in the Constitution trumps the "nuh-uh!" argument.... which is really a ruse anyway.  Whenever these other types of marriage are ruled constitutional, you'll find a way to support them like you've supported gay marriage. This is because you are a moral relativist. 



> > And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a big imagination.  I'm not excited by it nor am I appalled.  It doesn't matter to me, it doesn't affect me or my marriage.  The Bible says that we are to love our neighbor as ourself and you are forgetting that part of the Bible....you should love even homosexuals and want the same benefits for them that you get.  And just a reminder, the Bible doesn't apply to our government.  The constitution doesn't mention or quote the Bible....in fact, our founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that church and state needed to remain separate.   And the fact that the court has deemed same sex marriage as legal, I don't see how it has anything to do with your morality unless you feel that now you have to participate in homosexuality.  And you sound terribly afraid of the government....imagining that the government is going to go so far as to tell people what sexual positions they must use.....but you and your beliefs would probably like the government to go in to people's bedrooms and make sure no one is performing sodomy.  I bet you would be okay with that?



Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 2, 2015)

I care what Boss thinks. If he's exhibiting pathology I care a great deal.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.
> ...



LOL- you are the one who wants to go back to the good old days of Christian persecution of homosexuals- and predict that Supreme Court will suddenly be acting like Christian conservatives. 

You are the one who is convinced that gays will be trying to pass laws so that they can rape you on the street.

Talk about a wacko


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



LOL- 'because it effects the rights of other people'.

Showing once again you care deeply about the rights of people- if they are Christians- but not if they are gay. 

There are people who do care- just as there were people who cared deeply about the ban on mixed race marriages ending.

It was 20 years before most Americans accepted mixed race marriages. Most Americans already accept Americans of the same gender marrying. 

But there will always be those who are offended by changes to what they consider to be traditional marriage- whether that is ending bans on mixed race marriages or ending bans on same gender marriages.

Doesn't mean we have to indulge you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> [Q
> Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!



"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them. 

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians, 

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Exposing bigots and perverts like you is a pleasure.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your idea of a debate is clearly just to keep repeating what you believe over and over again.

The Supreme Court ruled according to the Constitution- just as it did in Loving v. Virginia and every other case were it overturned an unconstitutional marriage law. 

The Constitution does not say that things like these the right of the people to decide- the Constitution says explicitly that Americans must be treated equally before the law- regardless of what States decide. 

You believing it was a bad ruling has no more meaning than those who believed Loving v. Virginia was a bad ruling.

You believing it will lead to the end of the world- or the United States or whatever the hell you believe- merely sound like those who predicted the same things when the Supreme Court ruled that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

50 years from now- your rantings will appear to America just like the point of view of those who supported Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well it was particularly funny when he predicted that since the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage- that would lead to the government intruding into our bedrooms.

Funny because of course- Christians passed laws specifically to control what Americans did in the privacy of their bedrooms- and the Supreme Court is the one who said that was violating the rights of Americans.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized. 

But YOUR moral relativist viewpoint IS going to change. You're already finding no reason to object to polygamy or brother/sister marriage in some cases. When the time comes, you will support virtually ANY kind of marriage demanded by any pervert minority. All you need to embolden you is the knowledge that other pinheads like you have your back.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states. 

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Really? 

Feel free to quote me on that. 

As I have said- I really don't have a dog in your dog show. You are the one who keeps bringing up gay marriage and sibling marriage- not me. 

You keep insisting that because of Obergefell brothers will soon be marrying sisters- and I have pointed out that bigots said the same thing about the ban on mixed race marriages. 

Bigots like you always find a reason to discriminate against minorities. 

When the time comes, you will support the government regulating virtually any kind of sexual conduct. You will  be demanding that Christians be allowed to tell all Americans exactly how we can and must lead our 'moral lives' by insisting on legislating our sexual conduct, contraception, and of course eventually music and dance and literature and movies.

Because that is what moral bigots like yourself do.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Homosexual behavior is condemned by all Christian religion. Tolerance for any sinner is advocated as well as reserving judgement, if you follow the teaching of Christ. Tolerance and acceptance are two completely different things. 

The ramifications of the ruling have not been realized as the ruling is very recent. It may take years for those ramifications to transpire but they are coming. Polygamists are already challenging the laws in many places and when their case gets to SCOTUS, in order to maintain consistency with Ogeberfell, they will have to rule in favor of polygamists and polygamy will be law of the land. That won't happen tomorrow or next week, it may take several years or perhaps even a decade... it's coming. 

We've been over mixed race marriage. It's a different issue. How many American GIs were denied marriage to their Korean wives? Black men were being denied something white men could do. That was wrong, that was unconstitutional, that violated the black man's rights. Gay marriage did not exist, no one got to marry same gender, it wasn't a thing. It's never been a thing until now.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 2, 2015)

You're mistaken the argument for same sex marriage has actually been on supreme court record since 1967.  The Supreme had long elected not to make a call on various cases, preferring to leave it to the individual states decisions - until states like Virginia decided to turn it to a discrimination issue by repeatedly tightening their state law's to specifically and willfully harm the Constitutionally protected rights of fellow American's, turning SSM not into merely a state issue, but a /national/ issue that could no longer be left unaddressed by the Supreme.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Bullshit!


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 2, 2015)

Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans.   Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Take a chill pill dude.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC. 

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related.  It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together. 

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans.   Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh



And in those arguments the requirement that the two licensed individuals remained one man and one woman with no possibility of incest occurring.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ah, but the acceptance is happening too...that's the part that pisses you off, doesn't it? 

Churches becoming more Gay Friendly



> The ramifications of the ruling have not been realized as the ruling is very recent. It may take years for those ramifications to transpire but they are coming. Polygamists are already challenging the laws in many places and when their case gets to SCOTUS, in order to maintain consistency with Ogeberfell, they will have to rule in favor of polygamists and polygamy will be law of the land. That won't happen tomorrow or next week, it may take several years or perhaps even a decade... it's coming.



And polygamists did so before the Obergefell ruling. They either have a case or they don't, gays have nothing to do with it. You're echoing the same "slippery slope" fallacy used in Loving. Same bigots, different target. 

_It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent._​


> We've been over mixed race marriage. It's a different issue. How many American GIs were denied marriage to their Korean wives? Black men were being denied something white men could do. That was wrong, that was unconstitutional, that violated the black man's rights. Gay marriage did not exist, no one got to marry same gender, it wasn't a thing. It's never been a thing until now.



No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 2, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So what you're seeing in the above argument, is that those who rode the slippery slope down to the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy, coming to misinform you that *"There is no Slippery Slope".*

It's foolishness on a profound scale.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.



Yes, black men were being discriminated against and not allowed to marry white women. There was no gender discrimination with marriage, it was the union of two genders. It was not prohibited on basis of skin color or sexuality. You had to fundamentally change what marriage is in order to make it a discrimination, and it's that fundamental change that will be the problem in the future. 

The reality of truth here is, you don't care. IF it leads to legal polygamy... so what? That was going to happen anyway... you've already got your convenient excuse ready! When sibling marriage is demanded, you'll find a way to crab walk over and support that or you'll just shrug and say, what are ya gonna do? When the perverts come for our children, you'll be lamenting how all this 'age of consent' stuff is rooted in religion and needs to go anyway, so what's the big deal... it's not hurting you or your marriage... sit down and shut up!  

It's coming folks.  As sure as I am sitting here, it is coming.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Are you lying- ignorant- or just a bigot who declares what is 'Christian religion'?

_Liberal Christians are supportive of homosexuals. Some Christian denominations do not view monogamous same sex relationships as bad or evil. These include the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ,[32] the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Church of Sweden, the Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church of Germany, the Church of Denmark, the Icelandic Church, the Church of Norway or the Protestant Church of the Netherlands. In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination of 40,000 members, was founded specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community, and is devoted to being open and affirming to LGBT people. The United Church of Christ and the Alliance of Baptists also condone gay marriage, and some parts of the Anglican and Lutheran churches allow for the blessing of gay unions. Within the Anglican communion there are openly gay clergy; for example,_


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> The SCOTUS *did not* go by the Constitution, and that's the whole problem here.


You are fucking deranged.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal. 

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- same gender couple are getting married.

Everything is is just your homophobic hyperbole. Polygamists have challenged the laws before- and can challenge the laws again- the task before them is the same task that mixed race couples and gay couples face- they have to make a case and then the State has to come up with compelling reasons why the State does ban polygamous marriages. 

Whether or not the State can do so has nothing to do with Obergefel or Loving- either the State can defend the ban on polygamy- or it cannot. 

If you think that the State cannot defend its ban on Polygamous marriage- then why do you oppose polygamous marriage?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It is a 'different' issue in that ban targeted a different minority group to prohibit the marriage of.

Just like you argue that 'gay men' can marry anyone they want- as long as the person is a woman-

The State of Virginia argued that black men could marry anyone they wanted- as long as the person is black. 

That was wrong- that was unconstitutional- just as the ban on same gender marriage was wrong and unconstitutional.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Bullshit!



Every post from you- starting with and especially your OP- has been nothing but bullshit.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Feel free to find any quotes which actually support your claims- I don't think you can.

No one made a successful argument that siblings must be allowed to marry other siblings.

Are you just actually completely ignorant about what the argument before the courts were- or are you lying?

I suspect some of the first- and a whole lot of the last.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans.   Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh
> ...



Nope- once again you are just lying. 

You are just as bigoted as those bigots who argued that mixed race marriage bans served a vital moral purpose.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.
> ...



Yeah- just like the rapture. Just like the end of days.

We hear these idiotic claims all of the time.

My recent favorite included the 'blood moon'.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You failed to provide an answer to group A. 

Please do so that we may proceed


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



God you are a simpleton. 

I  using the exact same supportive arguments that led us to this point dimwit, but you knew that, right?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No- you are just pulling crap out of your ass, and then claiming it is what was said in courts.

Which is why you never actually provide any evidence for your claims- you just pull crap out of your ass.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



If anyone knows about pulling crap out (and into) ones ass, it surely is you. 

You deflect all you want dimwit.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Just you pulling more crap out your ass. Must get crowded in there with all of those straw men you have stuffed in it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.
> ...



Is it intentional obtuseness? Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, therefore it was argued that no discrimination occurred...just like you're arguing that there is no discrimination because I could have married a man. They wanted to discriminate based on race, you on gender. 




> The reality of truth here is, you don't care. IF it leads to legal polygamy... so what? That was going to happen anyway... you've already got your convenient excuse ready! When sibling marriage is demanded, you'll find a way to crab walk over and support that or you'll just shrug and say, what are ya gonna do? When the perverts come for our children, you'll be lamenting how all this 'age of consent' stuff is rooted in religion and needs to go anyway, so what's the big deal... it's not hurting you or your marriage... sit down and shut up!
> 
> It's coming folks.  As sure as I am sitting here, it is coming.



Why would we suddenly start lowering the age of consent simply because gays can civilly marry when the AOC has only gone up historically?

Back when being gay was a crime, 65 year olds could legally marry 12 year olds. 

Why would that trend reverse?

You're right, I don't care about polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult. Same thing kinda goes for siblings too.

The bigots were sure we'd legalize all those things when Loving was ruled on too. Same bigots, different decade.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



HUH?

Heterosexuals do not have sex with there own sex. 

You see where this is going and have started the back track. 

I get that. 

Not sure why you think incest can occur without the act, but apparently you do.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Who knows what you think I'm backtracking? 

Incest is illegal. If two brothers want to marry each other, how on Earth does the government know they are platonic?? Is there a check box on a marriage license application to indicate you're not interested in having sex with the person you're marrying?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are aware of the legal concept of burdon of proof, right?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you have yet to show a marriage law that requires sex.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Is it intentional obtuseness? Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, therefore it was argued that no discrimination occurred.



But it did because that is segregation.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If you deny your partner sex, it's grounds for divorce.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Is it intentional obtuseness? Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, therefore it was argued that no discrimination occurred.
> ...



Segregation and anti miscegenation are two different things. Your arguments mirror those of the racist bigots of the 60s. I know you say you don't care, but it's worth pointing out to you...AGAIN.

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government. (the anti gay bigots use this one all the time don't they?)

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage. (I'm pretty sure you've done that repeatedly in this thread regarding gays)

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and (We've seen that one over and over in this thread)

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." (this one too)

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years. (and still being used by Boss in his desire to discriminate against gays)
​


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Uh Faun...we DO have sex


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Don't let these morons fool you. Most straight men love lesbians.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Try that one. No fault divorce and all. 

Concider that, if sex is an obligation in marriage, then the state is forcing people to have sex to maintain a right. If that's the case, then the state can't prosecute a husband for rape and the state can require certain kinds of sex as the qualifier


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That's idiotic. 

Does your marriage license require that you do?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



We don't care that you have sex with faun.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How, you ask? *You're the one* making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

And why did SeaWytch imply you were having sex with her?


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection. 

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Is it intentional obtuseness? Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, therefore it was argued that no discrimination occurred.
> ...



Yet the Courts didn't find the law unconstitutional because of 'segregation'- they found the law unconstitutional under the Equal Treatment clause of the 14th Amendment- exactly as the court ruled in Obergefel.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Prove it.

Prove any of what you claim.

Just curious to see if you will even try.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because it was an exvluded pairing that applied equally to all eligible couples. The reason was to do everything possible to stop defective bloodlines (at least goverment licensed defective bloodlines) 

The equitable application of the law, for a specific purpose made such a prohibition meet equal protection qualifications. 

Now it's absurd, since brothers cannot procreate with each other and now same sex couples are allowed to marry. 

Sorry dude, your side changed the single qualification that made this possible. 

Aren't you proud?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Prove legal theory?

Ok, name the compelling state interest in denying two heterosexual brothers the right to reap the economic benefits of marriage?

Answer, there is none.

See how easy that was?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why would I be proud that you're retarded? 

Again, you said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. To that end, you even suggested two brothers should be allowed to marry each other because they could be heterosexual. 

The same holds true for opposite gendered siblings. Yet they still couldn't marry even when marriage was limited to a man and a woman.

You can't even see the fatal gaping head wound in your position, can you?


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Dear Faun the Pawn:

No male family member could marry a too closely related female.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not, that was a qualification of obtaining a license. AND it applied across the board, and for sound reason. The reason was that by doing this, NO GOVERNMENT LICENSED MARRIAGE COULD RESULT IN INCESTUOUS DEFECTIVE BLOODLINES.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not.

Now YOUR side was successful in adding eligible type couples to the mix. The overall ban is absurd unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in denying otherwise eligible partners that just happen to be heterosexual brothers, from the economic benefits of marriage.

I get it, you can't. So Ya got your additional five minutes of attention whore time.

As the Aussies say

Good on Ya sport.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You came up with the arguments, deal with it. 

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You make no sense at all. 

Since sex is not a requirement of marriage,  your bloodline theory is irrelevant.  It anything you've been saying made any sense, and it doesn't marriage between a brother and his sister would have been legal years ago.

You're _trying _ to make this about same-sex siblings/parents and their kids, but you lost that argument the moment you pointed out that sex isn't a requirement of marriage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sorry, you don't get to pawn off your idiocy on me.

The moronic notion that siblings can now marry each because same-sex marriage can no longer be banned *is all yours.*


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Faun, there was an exclusion for entering the institution. That exclusion no longer exists. Without that exclussion then ALL must be eligible to marry. Before THIS WAS NOT IN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY. 

Regardless if sex is a qualification or not, then the state has NO WAY to NOT LICENSE relationships that could RESULT IN defective bloodlines. 

You must be ever so happy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because you say so?

All you have to do to win the argument is provide the compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage. 

Oh, you're this bold and brave protector of rights? Really? And you can't answer that?

Light weight progressive.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, because that is *your * argument, not mine. It's all you've been talking about on this thread. You don't get to pawn your moronic argument off on to me.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And btw, there's no [legal] difference between two heterosexual males marrying each other as there is from a gay man marrying his gay sister, yet such marriages were still banned even before the ban on same-sex marriages became illegal. Nothing has changed, nor will change,  for immediate family members who want to marry each other because of the Obergefell ruling.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of two heterosexual brothers from the economic benefits of marriage? Right?

Asked the same question prior to Obergefell the answer was that no such marriage was allowed so the State did not to meet that standard. 

As for opposite sex siblings, prior to Obergfell, the state would simply have to prove that the prohibition met the equal protection standard and that the application of that standard served to protect society from harm. Which it did. 

Now, after Obergfell, state the compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to two individuals that can't possiby cause societal damage from a defective bloodline.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why do you insist in extolling such traditional views Neo Con.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You understand that a law can't be arbitrary? right?


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The compelling interest is the same as for why a gay brother couldn't marry his gay sister before Obergefell.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Which is?


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Doesn't matter.

A gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.

Nothing has changed despite Obergefell.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Except that you are pointing out subgroups within a larger group.

Before Obergfell there was no need to outline the subgroups as all were excluded and that was equitable.

To protect the integrity of the bloodlines a single exclussion was required and that single exclusion was not arbitrary. No male could marry any female, too closely related. That single, non arbitrary, equitable exclussion served the purpose in eliminating any possibility of the State licensing a relationship that would degrade the bloodlines through incest.

See the change the Obergfell ruling created. You pointed it out quite nicely.

Now yoi have arbitrarily denied this right to many millions of individuals who can't possibly degrade bloodlines, whether married or not. 

And your compelling state reason to continue this arbitrary exclussion is....

A shrug of the shoulder?


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It doesn't matter that they are a "subgroup" of a larger group. Gays are also a "subgroup" of a larger population and that matters not.

And again, the salient point you can't evade ... a gay brother could never marry his gay sister. Likewise, a straight brother cannot marry his straight brother.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your two examples show the absurdity of how the law currently exists. Laws must be based in reason.

What reason is there to exclude those pairings now.

The law previous had an obvious meaning attached to it.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, not too closely related.

States wanted the participants to know that, when entering these sanctioned relationships, they were marrying into clean bloodlines.

What is the reason to exclude same sex siblings now, since these relationships could not effect those bloodlines?

You can continue to deflect, that's what defenders of bad laws do, but the truth is the truth, and Obergfell created this one.

Even more interesting is that you appear to be arguing that the law is just based on tradition and that laws that are arbitrary, containing no compelling state interest in denying individual rights are constitutional. 

If that's not your argument, then you could easily come up with the compelling interest that the State has in denying same sex heterosexual brothers the right to marry. 

Let's hear it ol wise one.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The reasons for those laws have not changed because of Obergefel.  You're clinging to stupid because you _think_ you found a way down the slippery slope because of Obergefell with incestuous marriage ... but you didn't.

The law for as long as I can tell prohibited a gay brother from marrying his gay sister. That's the end of your argument. You just don't know it yet.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage. 

Clue #2. There is none. 

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying. 

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state. 

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Even funnier is your claim that a presumption exists, and that would presumption would negate the need for the State to prove a cimpelling Intetest.

Where does that presumption come from?

TRADITION.

Are you really that OCD that even you don't see that?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Laws must be based in reason?  You clearly have not read enough laws.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Maybe so,

I'm more versed however with contract law which, by the way, what a marriage licence is. 

I see you still have no answer to the posed question. 

But your ability to deflect is a thing of progressive beauty

Really it is


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Which question do I not have an answer for, the compelling interest in preventing close familial marriages?  I've answered you about that at least two times already.  If you cannot be bothered to read my responses that isn't my fault.

Oh, perhaps you'd be willing to explain to Boss that marriage is a form of contract law?  He seem to think otherwise.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2015)

When is Pops filing his case one wonders? He's very passionate in his defense of siblings marrying. Best of luck!


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You asked for a compelling interest and I gave you one. It destroys your position, so now you cry the compelling interest I gave you is not a law. 

Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Giving a point to, what only could be considered an arbitrary law, only weakens your position. 

Look, if a group, or subgroup can be excluded because of an ability (procreation), then the States have an equal right to exclude because of inability. 

You fucking crazy? That makes what the Supreme Court just did inexcusable!

You are really that stoopid.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I am very proud that in the United States, couples can now legally marry regardless of the race or gender of their spouse.

Meanwhile- it is still illegal for siblings to marry.

Just as it was before Obergefell and just as it was before Loving.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Pop is just trying to get you to dance with his strawman- he even lies about what you are saying to get you to dance.

Just admire his delicate dance moves as he swirls his straw man around and around as he hopes no one notices he is all by himself.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What part of _compelling interests are not necessarily law _ confounds you?

Is it the same misfiring of synapses which fooled you into believing I said _a group is excluded because of an ability?_

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.



So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.
> ...


They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary. 

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Our law is based on individual rights. Unless applied equally, and with the exact same rational basis, your argument is simply arbitrary. 

The same arbitrary argument was used to deny blacks the right to marry whites and men from marrying men. 

You seem to be both a bigot and a homophobe along with a heterophobe and stoopid as they come.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Idiot, you need to provide evidence that marriage requires sex, or you are creating an arbitrary law which violates the due process of those entering into the contract. 

Get it. 

Without men being only allowed to marry women, the "too closely related" clause becomes complete foolishness, that is, once again, unless you find a statute that requires sex as a part of marriage. 

All citizens are innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. 

Incest is a crime.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Are you too stupid to think nobody saw your deflection goat head?


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The 14th Amendment is about everyone being treated equally under the law. There are no individual exceptions.

No siblings can marry. All siblings are treated the same under the law.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You've already abandoned your plea on incestuous marriage. Remember?


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




That's what you call having your ass handed to you? A deflection?


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



But that's discrimination against incestophiles.  You're making the "black men can still marry black women" argument. Incestophiles are sexually attracted to incest regardless of whether gay or straight. It is their sexuality just like homosexuality is a gay person's sexuality. 

And keep in mind... gay people were already treated equally under the law too. A gay man could marry any woman he could find that would marry him... not a problem. Many-a-gay man have. 

*I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.*

Homosexuals represent a group of people with a sexuality... Incestophiles represent a group of people with a sexuality.  Why does one group enjoy access to a law while another group is denied equal protection? 

The question continues to be raised and no one seems to be able to coherently present an answer that isn't exactly the same argument made against gay marriage. It comes down to a "moral judgement" of sexuality. That's why the answers are often flighty and vague.. _"If you don't know why we don't allow THAT then I can't help you!"_  or... _"We all know THAT is wrong!"_  Then some pinhead strains his brain nerve and comes out with something sounding like a Christian fundie _"Oh, we can't allow it because THAT is harmful to children and a threat to society!"_ 

So typical of the hypocrites on the left. You somehow think you can dance around this issue and not face any consequences of your decisions. Like someone died and made you the Moral Gods of Earth and only YOU can get to decide what is right and wrong for society... we just need to shut up and let you rule! 

For the first time today, I saw a post from someone talking about polygamy and the pro-gay-marriage liberal popped off... _"I've never said that I am opposed to polygamy, I am still undecided on that issue..."_  Now, just a short time back, this was laughed off as a joke that anyone would ever even remotely think about going there... _"We Have Laws Against THAT-- Stupid!"_  That's what we heard before gay marriage was created by SCOTUS decree. Suddenly, this is now "undecided" with some libs. Give it a few special episodes of Ellen and Oprah with some heart-wrenching story of inequity and the liberal pro-gay marriage crowd will be toting the banner!  Next will be the hebephiles... then the incestophiles.. then the zoophiles. Just like little social dominoes.... each one falling as the libs incredulously claim the next is simply ridiculous fear mongering.


----------



## guno (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...





Boss said:


> I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth



I bet you and your fellow wingnuts are salivating for that day , with relish


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And again, Dredd Scott must still be the law of the land, Right?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Point it out. And point out how marriage must be incestuous without it requiring sex as a requirement

Your side created this quagmire, not mine


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, I call your deflection another admission of defeat.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement. 

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you're assuming anyone gives a shit that you are arguing quite forcefully to marry your sister. Go for it. File your case.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Link to that specific post or admit the lie.

You realize you're exhibiting homophobic tendencies SeaWytch. You would deny the rights and benefits of marriage to millions of potential partners, not to mention the dignity of married partners to those partners children simply because their pairings cannot produce offspring!

NEWSFLASH

SeaWytch and Faun are HOMOPHOBES!

Why do homosexuals frighten you Wytch, or is this simply a symptom of your OCD?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh, it's for _others _to marry their siblings. How generous of you. You are still quite the ardent defender. Incestuous couples lionize you I'm sure. 

I'm not denying anything to anyone. I support your support...now run along and file your case, hero of the incestuous.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Are you admitting there is no compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings from marrying? Then no court case is required as it is a civil right issue and state legislature have a duty to address it.

Incestuous couples?

You must do something then that no other poster has yet been able to produce. That is the statute requiring sex in a marriage. If not, you're simply projecting your own perverted thought process on others.

Did you forget all my post in which I state quite clearly that I oppose family marriage? Of course you didn't. But then, instead of admitting defeat and the lie, your OCD controlled mind made you post an untruth. 

Sucks to be you I guess


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss

Your assertion that homosexual marriage will be killed is only half right, what dies is marriage as a state licensed institution. It dies not for the reasons you state, but under its own weight.

The marketing campaign "gay marriage " was incredibly successful, but anyone with half a brain sees that Obergfell didn't legalize gay marriage, it legalized same sex marriage. Those are remarkably different critters

There simply is no reason that millions upon millions of single Americans not buddy up with a friend, pay the fee for a license and enjoy lower health insurance costs, tax breaks and the other financial breaks that licence brings.

Best part is, only keep the licence until you find someone you really want to spend the rest of your life with.

The license does not require the partners to have sex, be in love, be faithful, be devoted, cohabitate or just about anything else. It just requires a meeting of the minds, a small fee and a signature.

Get a license, share in your partners lower cost couples health insurance and tax breaks and when you've saved enough for that new car or whatever gizmo you want, file a non contested divorce.

This will place heavy burdens on governmental entities and reduce tax receipts.

Think the government will stand idly by and watch that train wreck?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It's not me you have to convince. I don't care. You are the one arguing so passionately for legal status for incestuous relationships, not me. I support your support. File your case.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

You're again idiotically comparing homosexuality to incest. You're comparing being black to incest. 

But you're an abject imbecile who can't comprehend none of those are the same.  Furthermore, incest is illegal ... being black or gay is not.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Nope, Dredd Scott was overturned. The same cannot be said about gay opposite-sex  siblings getting married. That still remains illegal, therefore, your argument remains the tattered pieces of crumbs laying on the floor its been since the start.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Umm, there is no quagmire other than the ones inside your own head.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Good for you ... you run with that.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You didn't read the post you responded to, did you?

Here it is again, and this time note, I said nothing about married people having sex in it...

_Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that._​
... now then, you will note (hopefully), marriage between a man and a woman who are immediate family, have never been allowed to marry.

I know this upsets you because to blows your argument to smithereens, but you'll just have to deal with that. Just like you'll have to deal with [non-immediate family] gays being allowed to legally marry.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Without a single counter argument. 

Yep, must be shattered. 

You can't make this stuff up


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wait.  If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary?  Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Correct, when marriage was only between a man and a woman, for some reason people MUCH brighter than you than added.......

Not too closely related. 

Why do you suppose they did that, yet never made that a requirement in any other contract in the entire country. 

Things that make you go ummmmm?

Obviously you have zero perspective, you're OCD


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Where did you dig that up?

The restriction denying all marriage between siblings is arbitrary if, as stated before, the prohibition was meant to stop incestuous marriage from producing defective bloodlines. 

If not, explain why the prohibition existed in the first place.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Hey Wytch, we are on Internet forum, not a statehouse floor. 

Your marketing ploys no longer work.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



How many times do I have to answer the same question?  Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other.  A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them.  It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced.  It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.

With siblings it is a less compelling argument but might still be considered a strong enough one.  That would be decided should it go to court.

Then there is the fact that marriage creates a new family, legally speaking.  With close family relations there is already a family, perhaps leading to the argument that close family members cannot do one of the things marriage is there for, creating a new family.

What about your statement about marriage being arbitrary?  You said, "since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.".  Arbitrary means without a particular reason.  You seem to be saying that if marriage is not monogamous there is no reason for it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't. 

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago. 

You did think this through. That's ok.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Your assertion that homosexual marriage will be killed is only half right, what dies is marriage as a state licensed institution. It dies not for the reasons you state, but under its own weight.



Again, that is only the start of the entire plan. Before we can do anything, we first have to remove the state from official association with marriage as an institution. Unless that is done, we'll never accomplish the rest. The next phase is to systematically eliminate governmental benefits associated with marriage, like the tax deduction for married couples. This all has to be done state-by-state since marriage is still a state institution. Federal tax laws can be changed, we can also change Social Security survivor benefits and how they are distributed as well as estate taxes and whatnot. Eventually, we whittle down all the perks of being married to where there really aren't any. THAT is when gay marriage begins to die a slow death. 

We're already talking about a relatively small contingent of  people who are gay and want to marry. Once the benefit to marriage is removed, there really is no motivation anymore. Most gays are not interested in a religious ceremony to codify their homosexual relationship in the eyes of God... just not reality. A few little sentimental ferries may still want to do it just to be different, but we're down to single digits across the country by then... you won't even be aware of them.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your choice is a false one.

You seem to have a false impression of what the word arbitrary means.

I gave you a couple of reasons outside of genetic defects in children why the state might ban close family marriages.  You appear to have decided that tradition and children are the only possible reasons for such a ban and don't want to hear any other reasons.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.



Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor? 

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage.  Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> How many times do I have to answer the same question? Beyond the possibility of inbreeding, marriage between close relations, particularly grandparents/parents and children, has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other. A parent or grandparent is an authority figure and children are often raised to do what those authority figures tell them. It leads to questions of abuse and even if the children are giving informed consent or being coerced. It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age; the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority to coerce someone into a relationship.



*...has a greater than usual danger of one party holding too much influence over the other.*
Speculative, subjective and morally-based discrimination.

*...It leads to questions of abuse.*
Speculative, subjective and morally-based discrimination.

*It is similar to the way teachers are banned from relationships with students even if the students are of age.*
They're not... it was determined this was a subjective and moral-based discrimination. 

*...the danger of an authority figure abusing that authority.*
Speculative, subjective and morally-based discrimination.

Where is your Bible and hymnals? Do you have a funny hat too?


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I gave you a couple of reasons outside of genetic defects in children why the state might ban close family marriages.



You gave generic morality-based opinions which are speculative and subjective. 
Similar in many ways to the very objections made to gay marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yes, and they were answered.

I again ask about this traditional veiw you have.

The state allows family members to partner in an LLC

But prohibits them the right to associate in marriage.

Neither law requires sex. 

What is the reasoning the state could allow one entity to exist, with family members as partners, but ban them from the other?

Come on, you know the answer, you just can't state it out loud and face the reality of what you've done.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I gave you a couple of reasons outside of genetic defects in children why the state might ban close family marriages.
> ...



I pointed that out before, and also they use the same arguments that were meant to keep the races from inter marrying. 

Interesting how I am now the progressive and they the bigots, racists and, in reality, homophobes.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And as I stated before.......

Dredd Scott was overturned


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.
> ...


Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception.  Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.



Boss said:


> Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage.  Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.


I couldn't care less if what deranged folks like you think of my morals. And there is no problem. You only think there is because you are fucking deranged. 

C'est la vie


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Good for you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Can that gay man contract with his gay sister in an LLC? Of course, there is no compelling state interest in denying this couple this right. Sexual contact is not a requirement of the formation of the partnership. 

Can the gay man contract with his gay sister in the formation of a marriage partnership? Sexual contact is not a requirement in the formation of the partnership. 


What is the compelling state interest in denial of the right. 

Easily answered prior to Obergfell. Not so easy now. 

You understand you are making the same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites. 

Making you a racist. 

How sad for you

And me the progressive


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I like short concession speaches. 

Thanks


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sure, uh-huh.  nothing makes you feel better than thinking you've won, right?


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You truly are dumb enough to believe a marriage is nothing more than an LLC. 

Since you believe this, explain why no marriages have LLC following their name?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not until you explain why you think sex is a requirement of marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not true, knowing I've won is far more satisfying. Which I did.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Uh-oh, I didn't say it is.

Dayam, there goes another argument of yours getting splattered like a bug on the windshield of the USMB 18-wheeler.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.



Well Boss , no flamming, it just seems to be that homosexuality has been a normal human condition for a very long time. 
Ultimately it's just a matter of personal choice, just as some people tend to feel attracted to people with different or the same skin color.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Nothing says congratulations like patting yourself on the back, eh?


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.



LMFAOooo... Hey doofus... Men weren't allowed to marry men since the country's inception! What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything? 

You're supposed to be presenting a compelling state interest for prohibiting it. 

You have... as usual... FAILED!


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.
> ...


Too fucking deranged. 

Such a reason has been explained to you. Time and time again. You're just not capable of comprehending. No skin off my back. 

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.
> ...



No, homosexuality has never been a "normal" human condition. ALL sexual behavior is a matter of personal choice. We don't redefine things and restructure society to "normalize" other sexual behavior.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No it HASN'T been explained... you people keep CLAIMING it has but it HASN'T. 

"It's illegal because it's illegal!" does not constitute an argument. 

Gay Marriage was ALSO illegal in many states until SCOTUS ruled it couldn't be any longer. 

MORE FAIL!


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.



Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago. 

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.


----------



## Faun (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.
> ...


So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Ok, it was common enough in Rome and Greece. In the middle ages  even such thing as paired saints existed. 
Closer to the present Kinsey reported a 2% of people were homosexuals long before there was any legalization on course. 

As far as they keep their sexual behavior private ,just as most people do, I can't see the what's the fracking problem. 
Mind you , as I commented regarding interracial weddings, many Americans considered it unnatural not that long ago ( Special Ed will probably be able to rant at length about it) . Is it unnatural that two persons from different races feel attracted? Well, no , not from my point of view. 

Now , you might find aesthetically unpleasent looking at two men or women kissing, which is an absolutely acceptable point of view, so, no offense should be taken if you would rather look the other way...but condemning it?


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



It doesn't matter about ancient Rome or Greece, it has never been "normal" sexual activity. Amazing that you think 2% constitutes "normal." 

We see how your "as long as they keep it private" viewpoint lasted. 

This is not about race. Virtually every person on this planet is mixed race. No one is 100% white or 100% black. Laws against "interracial marriage" were a ruse for discriminating against black men who wanted to marry white women, plain and simple. Both pairs of my great grandparents were "interracial marriages" and they weren't prohibited because it wasn't a black man marrying a white woman. We did not have to redefine what marriage is in order to strike down a racist law. 

It's also not about aesthetics or what I personally like to see or not see. This is about 28-33% of the country getting the right combination of activist judges on the SCOTUS to pass a 5-4 ruling which redefines the tradition of marriage (against the will of the people) and declare it to be a right based on sexual behavior, while excluding a host of other "less desirable" sexual behaviors without any consideration as to how that's going to ultimately turn out. 

It's about totally abandoning our social morality to be like ancient Rome and Greece. 
Abandoning morality turned out really well for them, didn't it?


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And you're still not presenting any compelling state interest to keep incest illegal or not codify incestophile marriage into law the same as homosexual marriage has been. You keep regurgitating the same boneheaded circular reasoning accompanied by the very same arguments made against gay marriage, as if suddenly all those arguments become relevant again!


----------



## Faun (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. Show me where the argument against legalizing gay marriage wad because homosexuality is illegal....  You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue rationally. You just make deranged shit up off the pointy top of your conservative head.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



faunt faunt faunt... nooo... the "It's illegal therefore it can't be legal" argument is circular reasoning. The "it's not what marriage has always been" argument is the same argument used to oppose gay marriage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, you dumbfuck. My argument isn't incestuous marriage can't be legal because it's illegal. That was your argument over same-sex marriage. My argument is incestuous marriage can't be legal because incest is illegal.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't follow along with even simple logic? This is exactly the reason you're still fighting this fight... because you're not capable of understanding what people are telling you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I have no problem following simple logic but you are dancing a jig in a circle. 

Homosexuality was illegal a few years ago... it became legal when they struck down sodomy laws because the court found the state had no compelling interest. So I have asked you what the "compelling interest" is for banning incest, specifically, gay incest, and you've not provided any. Montro tried but he sounded like Jerry Falwell explaining to me how we were concerned it might lead to danger to children and harm society...the same exact MORAL arguments made and rejected when they struck down sodomy laws. You guys "legal argument" isn't giving me much comfort. 

So... just like homosexuality was illegal a few years ago and now it's a protected constitutional right  which has  to be included in marriage law.... tell me why the same cannot apply to other sexual behaviors like incest or gay incest? And when those  laws are eventually struck down for lack of compelling interest, why can't those people have the same rights to marriage as homosexuals? 

Maybe this is too complicated of a subject for your retarded brain?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then why do you insist that a pair of heterosexual brothers be denied the right to marry?

It was impossible prior to Obergfell, it is at least plausible now yet you claim Obergfell changed nothing?

How warped has your bigotry made you lil fella?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Prior to Obergfell a same sex couple could not marry either. 

You are making the exact same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites. Making you a racist and an idiot. 

The illegal activity is what?

You realize that sex is not a qualification to marry, correct?

Because two people pledge to each other does not mean they intend sexual contact, or the States would disqualify family members from corporate membership altogether. 

Do you never tire of running in circles?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Faun, you fucked up again. 

No contract is legal if it is entered for criminal purposes. 

Good god, your an imbecile.  

If entered into for criminal purposes, the contract is not valid and the state is not sanctioning it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss 

Follow Fauns logic:

Incest is illegal, (which it is, married or not), and the State has a compelling state interest to deny citizens rights based on the POSSIBILITY alone that they might break this law. Due process be damned. 

Faun has redefined our entire legal system. 

Fauns logic is that, since incest is illegal, all citizens that have living family members can be denied their freedom because there exists the possibilty they may have sex together. 

Faun is not only a bigot, a racist and a homophobe, but quite possibly a Nazi.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Your assertion that homosexual marriage will be killed is only half right, what dies is marriage as a state licensed institution. It dies not for the reasons you state, but under its own weight.
> ...



No bigot, you're wrong again. We got married before the cash and prizes, we'd still get married if you took away the cash and prizes. 

What did your Congressman do when you called him or her and told them you wanted to end civil marriage? Are they still laughing?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Well you racist, bigoted, homophobe, we are talking about civil marriage. If you had a completely legal civil marriage the entire time, you would have received these cash benefits all along. 

Guess you didn't, huh?

Again, sucks to be you


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Marketing trick warning:

Make your argument about something other then what it is

They marketed same sex marriage as "gay marriage", which is not what the ultimate ruling would be. They knew this. 

They get the David and Goliath vote, big verses little. Root for the underdog, simpleton vote, without ever having to discuss the aftermath until after the ruling. 

Now they claim that same sex sibling marriage is incestuous, although they can't come up with a single statute that requires sex in marriage. 

It's interesting that they made this argument possible because of an outstanding marketing campaign, then run from their own success.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Again poppy, you can take away the cash and prizes you straight folks gave yourself. By all means, try like hell to cut off your anti gay nose to spite your face. You won't succeed. You straight folks like your cash and prizes too much to even give them up because of the icky gays. Besides, anti gay bigots like you are the minority.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Your crying is simply a distraction. Your argument would be refreshing though. 

Once the general public finally grasp the absurdi Obergfell created, and the loss of public funding in many different ways because of it, they will realize just how bad Obergfell actually was. 

There is no down side for something like the following to happen now:

A retired unioun plumber, in bad health and who's spouse died, could go to his buddy, who has no pension, high cost health care and simply marry him. 

They do not have to live together, love each other, be faithful or any of the other "romantic" things traditionally associated with marriage. 

His buddy, upon the death of the plumber, will recieve SS survivors benefits, survivors pension benifit and survivors health care benefits. 

Think the IRS and the unioun will be rethinking these marriage relationships?

Those benefits will die under their own weight 

All due to a simpleton ruling made by the USSC in favor of Obergfell. 

Now take the above relationship and show me the downside to the two involved. 

Once the general public see that financial benefit this could bring, it will become common, unless you can find a downside. 

And this is just one example, there are many many other ways that individuals can now game the system. 

These were held in check because of traditional values. Now? Not seeing it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What's too complicated is that regardless of how many times you're told the compelling interest is a higher than normal chance of birth defects, you still can't understand it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Obergefell did not suddenly allow immediate family members to marry. Your logic is seriously flawed. Your idiotic claim is that non-incestuous immediate family members should be allowed to marry now because of Obergefell,  but you can't explain how Obergefell changed their status from being banned to being allowed. Non-incestuous immediate family members have never been allowed to marry and still can't Obergefell doesn't change that. All Obergefell changed was if a couple wants to marry, gender cannot prevent that. It had no impact on immediate family members who cannot marry regardless of the genders of the couple.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> It's about totally abandoning our social morality to be like ancient Rome and Greece.
> Abandoning morality turned out really well for them, didn't it?


The roman empire lasted four centuries


Boss said:


> It's about totally abandoning our social morality to be like ancient Rome and Greece.
> Abandoning morality turned out really well for them, didn't it?


Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

The other definition refers to holding proper conduct. 
This is a very subjective definition, but it mostly refers to keeping the status quo: traditional behaviour, which might not necesarily be moral by the first definition. 

*
"The novel (Gulliver's travels) further describes an intra-Lilliputian quarrel over the practice of breaking eggs. Traditionally, Lilliputians broke boiled eggs on the larger end; a few generations ago, an Emperor of Lilliput, the Present Emperor's great-grandfather, had decreed that all eggs be broken on the smaller end after his son cut himself breaking the egg on the larger end. The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to "six rebellions... wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown". The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. The Big-Endians gained favour in Blefuscu."


----------



## Faun (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Oh look... pops has exhausted all argument that he's reduced to parroting back what others say about him. 

Earlier, I pointed out how his argument is taking him in circles, so now he tries to transfer is failures onto me.

_"Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?" - Faun_​


----------



## Faun (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And pops once again destroys his own argument against incestuous marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you then support family marriage. 

Good to know


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I hear projection is a sign of gay OCD, fits your clinical case to a tee. 

Seek help


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> What's too complicated is that regardless of how many times you're told the compelling interest is a higher than normal chance of birth defects, you still can't understand it.



Really? Two gay brothers or two lesbian sisters are going to potentially produce a child with birth defects?   You've taken Biology,  right?


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> The roman empire lasted four centuries



Not after their morality collapsed.


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Morality has two different definitions .
> One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
> On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*



Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others?  There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line. 

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What's too complicated is that regardless of how many times you're told the compelling interest is a higher than normal chance of birth defects, you still can't understand it.
> ...



And incest is against the law, whether one holds a marriage licence or not. 

According to the State of Maryland, incest is vaginal penetration. So it appears those opposing same sex sibling marriage have a problem. Especially in two brothers marrying there could be no such illegal activity.


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> And incest is against the law, whether one holds a marriage licence or not.
> 
> According to the State of Maryland, incest is vaginal penetration. So it appears those opposing same sex sibling marriage have a problem. Especially in two brothers marrying there could be no such illegal activity.



You are absolutely correct.  It is an argument for same-sibling marriage, not about sexual behavior. SCOTUS is clear, this is a fundamental right that cannot be denied. It's not about sexuality it's about equal protection under the law.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And incest is against the law, whether one holds a marriage licence or not.
> ...



I believe it was Justice Scalia that pointed this out in his opposition to Obergfell.

So many misconceptions about what civil marriage is.

Love? Not a requirement.

Sex? Not a requirement

Faithfulness, dignity. Not requirements.

Consent, payment of a fee and a signed document appear to be the only requirements that are provable  and non arbitrary.

So why all the opposition to equality

Maybe it's the traditional veiw of marriage?

Or the assumption of icky?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Morality has two different definitions .
> ...



So now homosexuals are monkeys in a zoo?  

As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.  

Homosexuals are expected to control their sexual behavior in the same ways heterosexuals are.  Homosexuals are not allowed to expose themselves in public, not allowed to rape someone, forced or statutory, etc..  

Can you name a single law or statute in which homosexuals are able to engage in sexual behavior where heterosexuals cannot?  Of course not.  

The more you post on the subject, the clearer it is that you despise homosexuality and your arguments, whatever terms you try to couch them in, comes down to that disgust, hatred, and fear.  Homosexuals are destroying society!


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.



No I didn't. An exhibitionist is not exposing himself without his own consent. A zoophile isn't being serviced by her rottweiler without his (implied) consent and hers. Necrophiliacs don't need consent from dead people. And even more to the point... a 14 year old in West Virginia is not any more 'of age' to consent as a 16 year old in Ohio or 17 year old in Kansas. 

What I brought up is control of your sexual urges. Either homosexuals are like monkeys and can't, or they are like humans and they can. Why do we need to change our definitions of tradition and laws to accommodate this single perverse sexual behavior and not so many others? I surmise the ONLY reason is because you have morally embraced it. The problem is, you're not really about "equality" and bucking "tradition" as much as you thought you were. Turns out, you still have a moral line you can't cross.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Of course there might be disagreement on subjects that should be discussed openly and honestly. 

I've encountered quite the same opposition, expressed hatred, when, for several year trying to have civil conversation about the impact that a ruling such as Obergfell might have on the institution of marriage. 

I was called a hater, a bigot, a racist and that brilliant marketing moniker, a homophobe. 

Now, when the shoes on the other foot..........

It would be refreshing if both sides could put away their anger and discuss issues in a calm and honest fashion, but I'm not seeing that happen anytime soon.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.
> ...



You continue to show how clueless you are about the definition and concept of consent.

The person(s) and exhibitionist exposes themselves to generally do not consent (and if they did, no one would report a crime).  A dog cannot consent.  They are incapable of the kind of thought which consent requires.  A corpse cannot consent.  Age of consent laws are obviously more of a grey area, but still, the concept remains.  You seem incapable of understanding the concept.

Everyone has moral lines they will not cross.  As has been explained to you over and over, for many, consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross.  It happens to also be a legal line that cannot be crossed.  For those of us who understand consent, that is a happy convergence.  For you, who seems to think consent is a meaningless concept, it's less pleasant.

Again, you equate homosexuals to monkeys.  Homosexuals are just as capable of controlling their sexual urges as heterosexuals.  Traditions and laws change.  Sorry you are so opposed to homosexuality that the same sex marriage decision makes you this uncomfortable.  That's just something you'll have to deal with.  Apparently you deal with it by telling people how tolerant you are of homosexuals, how you have so many friends and family who are homosexual, at the same time you describe them as immoral, perverse, unable to accept themselves because they know what they do is wrong, likely to try and rape you, destroyers of society.


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Again, you equate homosexuals to monkeys.



I did not equate homosexuals with monkeys. I questioned how you seem to think they are like them, in that they can't control their urge to engage in homosexual behavior. I know gay people who have been celibate for over 30 years. They know they are gay, there is no question they are gay, they could probably find a "lover" and engage in homosexual activity but they are fulfilled with close relationships of a different kind. They might even have the sexual urge to engage in homosexual behavior but they are able to control it. The same way I am able to control my urges to spunk on Kate Upton's titties. The same way you control your urge to fuck trannies. We ALL have what 'cranks our tractor' and that's fine... that's why Algore invented the Internets. 

What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Everyone has moral lines they will not cross. As has been explained to you over and over, for many, consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross.



*Everyone has moral lines they will not cross.*
No shit Sherlock? How long did it take for you to reach that enlightenment, Einstein? 

*consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross*
Bullshit! We do it all the time! 

How can a 16 year old give consent with a parent but not a 17 year old without a parent? 

And why 16 and not 14 or 12? 

A human as young as 6 months is capable of exhibiting "consent" but we construct a line that prohibits their consent. And all through our laws we establish acceptable crossing in lines for consent. I did not consent for you to wear clothes today and deprive me of your naked beauty. And why do I need your consent to look at your nakedness and masturbate in public? It's a perfectly natural sex act... right? There is really no "harm" to you... it's just this stuffy old church-based morality that stands in the way of my liberty and freedom! 

I did not give anyone my consent to redefine traditional marriage or demand that I recognize it as anything other than the union of a man and woman.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Homosexuality is a bit l


Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you equate homosexuals to monkeys.
> ...



Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not?  If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote?  30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?  

I never even hinted that homosexuals are unable to control their sexual behavior.  I never made any comparison between homosexuals and monkeys.  That's entirely you.  You can try to pretend that somehow I'm at fault for your various insulting comparisons between homosexuality and other things, but you are the only one making them.

We don't have to change society.  That doesn't mean society will remain stagnant and accept the kind of anti-gay bigotry you like to spout.  Society has been changing its view on homosexuality recently.  You don't agree with it.  You are taking your unhappiness with it and trying to say that society would be better off had it not changed to accept homosexuality, that same sex marriage is an immoral bit of judicial activism which will lead to all forms of marriage being recognized as legitimate.....none of which seems to matter when you also say that homosexuality is contributing to the downfall of society.  

You hate homosexuality, you find gays immoral and evil and icky and whatever the hell it is you actually think about this group of people you are so incredibly inconsistent about.  You have so many gay friends and family, you get along great, they are destroying society!  Bunch of monkeys!


----------



## CultureCitizen (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Morality has two different definitions .
> ...


Arguably pedophiles do harm someone else, so I can't consider that a valid argument. 
An exhibicionist, hmm not sure Boss, nude beaches and strip clubs seem to be ok, because people going to those places know what they will see, whereas in the rest of public places the "default" assumption is you don't conscent to it. So, yes, I'd be even inclined to accept that if there is a previous concensus on that topic ( is it acceptable to go naked in the streets ).Some societies do that, I guess it's a matter of concensus. 

On my morality scale running nude in a street is a minor moral offense, drunk driving is much more dangerous and serios from my view point. That doesn't make an argument to forbid alcohol, but rather to have controls to avoid drunk driving.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone has moral lines they will not cross. As has been explained to you over and over, for many, consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross.
> ...



Hey nitwit, you are the one that brought up moral lines that can't be crossed.  I agree with you and it makes you upset?  

Now you have decided you are in charge of what other people consider moral lines that cannot be crossed?  

Again, you seem unable to understand the concept of consent.  Just because the laws regarding age of consent are different in different places doesn't invalidate the concept or make it impossible for someone to consider consent a moral line.  You sound like a dangerous person with all the incredibly dense statements you make regarding consent and rape.

Comparing a change in law regarding marriage to sexual consent shows just how clueless you are about the entire idea.

At this point I can only conclude that you are either trolling or truly are mentally unbalanced.  Your contradictory arguments, wild variations in opinion, inability to understand why an animal cannot consent, not to mention your jumping from claims of tolerance and acceptance of gays to demonizing them as immoral, evil facilitators of the destruction of America are not indicative of someone with the ability to make a rational argument.


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?



Oh dear, do you  actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?
> ...



I certainly do.  Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?  

Here, let me help by quoting you....


Boss said:


> What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?



Notice you are talking about homosexuality, calling it a promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity.  Or did you mean something else in the second line but fail to mention it?  With the way you jump around in your statements about homosexuality and homosexuals, it's never certain what you might mean.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?
> ...



It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD. 

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What are you talking about now?  Is that somehow supposed to relate to the conversation between me and Boss?  I don't recall anything about people being born the way they are involved.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Homosexuals do indeed claim they were born the way they were.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Some do, certainly.  I haven't made any claims about that, nor Boss that I recall.  So again, is that supposed to relate to the conversation you're interjecting yourself into in some way?


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



But again... all those things are dealt with by society having a collaboration of opinion to form a policy we can all live with. We don't run around getting our 5 judges to rule something upon us and to hell with what the opposition thinks. 

Drunk driving is yet another area where we apply an arbitrary moral judgement on what constitutes a crime and what is acceptable. I've known people so uncoordinated they didn't need to be driving sober, much less under the influence. I've also known people who could be 3-sheets and out-drive Richard Petty. This is something that varies between individuals but society has collectively come together to establish a "moral based" point at which something becomes "intolerable" by law. People's entire lives might be ruined by .0001 amount in a blood alcohol test.... is that "fair" for us to destroy someone over? We've decided... yes, in order to ensure people don't do this behavior, we can make this law. 

You have your view, I have my view, the guy down the street has his view. We all have a view and they aren't all the same... and that's okay. It doesn't mean someone is terrible or awful people, they simply have a different view.


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?



No, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to same gender. It does not imply an act.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?
> ...



Right.....I said homosexuality is being gay and *not* having sexual relations.  Being gay is being attracted to the same gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



There indeed was conversation as to who claims justification for their acts, and what they claim that justification is.


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You didn't say anything, you asked me: _Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? 
_
There is no activity implied by an attraction. As I said, I know people who have been gay for 30 years and haven't engaged in homosexual behavior. You seem to not be able to distinguish between attraction and behavior. It's as if you think gay people only have one way they can possibly behave and they can't control that urge... so we have to change society to allow them to behave that way in order to have "fairness" or whatever.  We do not accommodate ANY other sexual behavior this way, including heterosexual! In ALL other cases, we understand that people can control their sexual urges and modify their behavior accordingly... except the homosexuals.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You conveniently ignore the quote from you that began this.  Here, I'll repeat it for you again :


Boss said:


> What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?



Note in the second sentence you use the pronoun 'this'.  What does this mean in context?  Well, when we go back to the first sentence to look, it appears 'this' means homosexuality.  So you are calling homosexuality a "rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity".  Since you had just talked about a celibate homosexual, I questioned what your view actually is on the subject.  You've made two rather contradictory statements.  In one you describe a celibate homosexual, in another you describe homosexuality as a promiscuous sexual activity.  

Now, if when you said 'this' in the second sentence you meant something else, but didn't provide the noun for which that pronoun is being used, fine.  You can feel free to tell me that what you actually meant was that homosexual sex is a promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity.  That is not, however, what you actually said, and is the reason I questioned your statements.

Oh, and I did say something.  I said, as you quoted, "homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations".  I should have inserted the word 'is' in there to be clearer, so let me restate: Homosexuality is 'being gay' and is not having sexual relations.

I can easily distinguish between attraction and behavior.  As someone who is repeatedly unable to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual relationships, you aren't exactly one to talk.  

What accommodation for homosexuals are you so opposed to.  Is it just marriage?  I find it hard to believe that if the Obergefell ruling had gone another way you would be perfectly happy with the way the law and society treat homosexuals.  You have a lot of hostility toward homosexuals in your posts.  But as far as marriage is concerned, it is not sexual behavior which has been accommodated, it is attraction.  Are you having trouble comprehending the difference?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Thanks for providing quotes to that conversation when commenting on it.  Oh, wait....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And, we've been following the thread a long time, if you can't keep up......

Maybe you were born that way?


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 10, 2015)

No, it's easier to KILL homosexuals, like the countrues Hillary is taking money from do....


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



First of all, those are questions and not sentences. Second of all, the pronoun "this" in a completely different sentence has nothing to do with the subject of the previous sentence. In proper contextual grammar, the pronoun is applied to the subject of the actual sentence it appears in.. "promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity." (aka: "this homosexual activity")



> Now, if when you said 'this' in the second sentence you meant something else, but didn't provide the noun for which that pronoun is being used, fine.  You can feel free to tell me that what you actually meant was that homosexual sex is a promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity.  That is not, however, what you actually said, and is the reason I questioned your statements.



No, as we see, you are attempting to be your usual and typical obtuse self. Instead of answering my questions you attempt to play liberal grammar nazi and fail all over the place because you're applying pronouns from one sentence to subjects of another sentence like an illiterate moron. It is for this reason that I fail to ever have a legitimate dialogue with you and have contemplated simply putting you on ignore rather than having to constantly correct your errors and misinterpretations.



> Oh, and I did say something.



No, you asked a question. You didn't say anything.



> I can easily distinguish between attraction and behavior.



No, I don't think you can. I think you are a simple-minded illiterate who can't comprehend basic 3rd grade grammar. You don't seem to know what the difference is between a question and a statement, you don't seem to understand the purpose of punctuation, and you damn sure don't seem to comprehend context.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So a question is not a sentence?  And you have the gall to question my literacy?    Here, let me help you out : the definition of sentence

When you say 'this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity' it still begs the question what promiscuous and self-indulgent activity?  To find out, since it isn't stated in that sentence, we have to look elsewhere.  In the case of your post, it was in the previous sentence where you talked about homosexuality.  Let me paraphrase so it's easier for you to understand.  "What makes homosexuality so important?  How does this sexual activity overcome boundaries?"  Can you see how the phrase 'this sexual activity' in the second sentence is clearly referencing homosexuality from the first sentence?  Put another way, without any context, "How does this sexual activity overcome boundaries?" would make no sense.  It doesn't explain what sexual activity it is talking about.  Or how about I give you an entirely different example.  If I said, "I love ice cream.  This food is both delicious and healthier than many other desserts.", would you not know that the phrase 'this food' in the second sentence is referencing ice cream from the first?  

The reason you fail to have legitimate dialogue is you are a dishonest, hypocritical, bigoted ass who usually refuses to admit any error.  I answer your questions repeatedly.  You have failed to answer many of mine and others'.  You can feel free to put me on ignore, obviously.  Maybe someone easier for you to argue with won't bring out your bigotry and hypocrisy so much.  Perhaps other posters will simply not mention your blatant lies.  Of course, considering you've had multiple other posters point out your lies in this and the killing homosexual marriage thread, maybe not.   

I have to wonder if perhaps the reason you think I am not answering your questions has anything to do with your not realizing a sentence can be a question.


----------



## Boss (Oct 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> So a question is not a sentence?



No, it's a question. A sentence is a sentence. It's why there are two different words.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> When you say 'this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity' it still begs the question what promiscuous and self-indulgent activity? To find out, since it isn't stated in that sentence, we have to look elsewhere.



No, you have to look elsewhere because you are too illiterate to follow context. The sentence is not incomplete. You simply read it as incomplete and then went searching for meaning from other sentences to find a context that was never stated, then you assumed you must be correct. You weren't correct, you missed the context of the sentence. You compounded your error by making a wrong assumption. Now you've wasted a lot of time arguing about what you thought I meant.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Fair enough ,
  I have one more story to share given my background as a computer scientist.  Alan Turing , one of the fathers of computer science was completely gay. Arguably he played a crucial role in intercepting nazi coded messages and significantly reducing the duration of the war.
  Eventually he admited his homosexuallity. This lead to a series of rather nasty events : he was tried for indecency, chemically castrated (his choice instead of prision ) forbiden to continue his work as a cryptographer and was denied entry into the U.S. 
  He should have been treated as a hero, not as a second class criminal.
  It does hurt me that anyone is treated in such manner, specially when he is a young and tallented person. So while I am not particularly fond of what could be called the "gay movement", I do honestly think everyone should have the right to live  their lives and their sexuallity as they best see fit.

Alan Turing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > So a question is not a sentence?
> ...



Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence?  A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..

This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if you are actually just trolling sometimes.  A sentence can be a question.  I have provided you with proof that a sentence can be a question.  It is a very basic fact.  Yet here you are, continuing to deny it despite the clear evidence.

It would be like me telling you a dog is a canine and you replying, "No, it's a dog.  A canine is a canine.  It's why there are two different words.". 

I can admit that I misread your post.  I've explained why it gave me the wrong impression.  If you can't even admit something as simple as that a sentence can be a question, you obviously have no intention or ability to accept any hint you might be mistaken about anything.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..



Yes, and none of that changes the fact that a question is still a question. 

Is there some point to all of this? Is this "argument" going to rage on for days or weeks? Here we are, about 24 hrs. removed from the post where I asked you two questions. Instead of answering them, you decided to play "untrained grammar monkey." Apparently, you had still rather play games and obfuscate than answer my questions. By the way, my next post had another several questions you've avoided as well. 

And I have noticed this is a recurring pattern with you. Things are taken completely out of context, in fact, the very post you are now myopically nit picking over my choice of words, was to correct one of your many false assumptions about what had actually been said.  You accused me of "equating homosexuals with monkeys" which is false, I never made any such claim. In the midst of trying to untangle the mess you've created with context and your lack of ability to grasp it, you decide to start playing grammar nazi, and doing so badly. Then you waste a day whining about some meaningless point that you've failed at making. Typical of you. 

I'm going to tell you this in hopes you will modify your behavior going forward... If you cannot stop this silly myopic game playing and obfuscation, this nit-picky and obtuse "cleverness" you think you're exhibiting, I am going to put you on ignore and never speak to you again. That's not a threat, it's a promise. This kind of shit is NOT going to continue. You can either grow the fuck up and engage in meaningful conversation with me, or you can render yourself irrelevant, it's up to you. Now... maybe this will prompt you to be defiantly bold and proclaim you don't really care... that's fine, just know that the next time you drag a thread off-topic to nit pick something this way, you're done and we're never speaking again.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..
> ...



Oooo, you'll put me on ignore!  For doing the things you constantly do.......your hypocrisy never ends.

You said 





Boss said:


> First of all, those are questions and not sentences.


When I asked you if a question is not a sentence, you replied like this 





Boss said:


> No, it's a question. A sentence is a sentence. It's why there are two different words.


What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.  Those sentences were questions, but still sentences.  Had you just been willing to say, "Oops, you're right, my bad" this would have ended long ago.  Instead, you refuse to admit any error.  Maybe you meant a statement is not a question.  Hey, everyone screws up sometimes.  I've already told you I misread what you said that started this little side-bar.  Why can't you just do the same?
I've noticed it's a recurring pattern with you.  Make mistaken statements or tell outright lies, have them called out, then refuse to admit them or simply ignore them.

You have made any number of comparisons between homosexuals and other things.  Pedophiles, necrophiliacs, monkeys, etc..  You then attempt to say those comparisons belong to other posters, despite the fact no one but you is saying those things.

Again, you should think about not calling someone a 'grammar nazi' when you are telling them a sentence can't be a question.  

You never answered how Alabama recognizing common law marriage, a non-licensed form of marriage, jibes with your contention that removing licensing removes state recognition of marriage.

You never answered whether two unrelated people can get a non-marriage contract and become recognized as immediate family members by the state.

There are plenty of questions you have left unanswered.  But you're going to put me on ignore if I don't answer all of yours?  

Taking things out of context, not grasping what someone is saying?  You've claimed I think homosexuals cannot control their sexual urges.  I've never said nor implied any such thing, in fact I've stated the opposite. 

What questions have I left unanswered?  Why homosexuality requires a change in society?  I don't think society is required to do anything.  I think that societal views change over time and the condemnation of homosexuality is one of those things.  More and more people have come to the conclusion that if two consensual adults love each other, or even just want to have sexual relations together, that's not a big deal.  More and more people think that two consensual adults, whatever their genders, should be able to be legally married.  I also don't think society has changed radically in being more accepting of homosexuality.  Marriage has, but what constitutes marriage is one small aspect of society and, in this case, will only apply to a small percentage of the population.  As far as the SCOTUS ruling, a majority of the court found that same sex marriage bans did not fill a compelling state interest in denying equal protection under the law.  You clearly disagree with that decision, but USSC decisions are not up for popular vote.  If enough people disagree they can push for a new constitutional amendment.  It's the same for any USSC ruling, whoever may disagree with it.

Anything else?  Do you want me to break down your silly questions regarding consent?  Do I need to once again talk about the difference between two adults consenting to a relationship and pedophilia, or necrophilia, or bestiality?  Do you want me to discuss each individual age of consent law?  Do I need to again say that age of consent laws can change and are not specific to the individual?  Whatever questions I answer, you're going to be upset, because I will continue to point out when you lie, when you make ridiculous comparisons (even if you try to attribute them to others), I will continue to point out your hypocrisy and your denigration of homosexuals.  Put me on ignore if you must, I can't change how thin your skin may be.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

English lit class????^^^^^


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..
> ...



God- when will you strap on a pair of balls and own up to your own mistake instead of lying about them?

_Boss: First of all, those are questions and not sentences._

As Montrovant correctly pointed out- those were sentences- that were questions_._

He pointed out your error- and rather than admitting you just made an error, you dance around and pretend you never said your mistake.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..
> ...



Can you promise that to all of us who post responses to your BS like your OP?

Personally I love it when folks are so upset about my responses that they feel compelled to use technology to prevent having to see the words. 

Of course I still get to respond to your BS. And you will just let my responses stand unchallenged- which will be fine- I love getting the last word.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



^^^^ must love talking to himself


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.



No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist  sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions."  As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, _questions_, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances. 

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?



Again... not the question I asked. 

What makes homosexuality (in particular) something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? 

How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity(homosexual behavior) somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

As anyone can clearly see, I am not simply asking why homosexuality requires a change in society.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.
> ...



You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.  


Boss said:


> First of all, those are questions and not sentences.



You clearly say they are *not* sentences.  You did not say they are not* just* sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely.  Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not *just* a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore.  It won't ruin my day.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?
> ...



I'll reply again.

I do not believe homosexuality is something that we have to change our culture and society radically and fundamentally to attempt normalizing it.  I disagree that it has to be done, I disagree that our society is radically changed by the acceptance of homosexuality.  I believe that all societies change over time and this is simply an example of that.  If anything the view of homosexuality as acceptable could be seen as just one of many changes to the sexual mores of American society.  

I don't think homosexual behavior is inherently promiscuous.  I think men are much more sex-oriented than women, generally speaking, so with gay men the likelihood of promiscuity goes up.  I don't believe that homosexuality overcomes the boundaries of reason, I don't believe that homosexuals are somehow unable to control their sexual urges.  That is your projection on me.

I have answered your questions again.  Strangely, despite your complaints, you still have not answered mine.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?
> ...



The odd thing is, that you even believe that our society and culture are being radically and fundamentally changed just because our society is now treating homosexuals equally before the law. 

No one is fundamentally changing your life in the United States. What has been changing is that decades- even centuries of legal discrimination have been gradually eliminated. None of which affect you personally. Or any non-gay American.

What makes you think that Americans who are homosexuals do not deserve to be treated equally by the law?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?
> ...



I view the government's role in 'controlling our sexual urges' to start when 'our sexual urges' infringe on another person's rights.

You may want to screw Angelina Jolie, and with her consent, government should not be involved or care. Only when you attempt to have sex with her without her consent should the government get involved. 

And that involves all forms of sex when it comes to consent- people who cannot give consent- children, mentally incompetent, drugged and intoxicated- then there is a role for government to be involved- in protecting one person from the attack of another person.

But if you as a single man want to go out every night to bars, and hook up with a different man or woman every night- the government has no role in regulating your testoterone. 

Now- if you believe that government has a role in promoting monogamy- well then we have a government program that supposedly promotes monogamy- that is called marriage.

The program you want to deny to gay men.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> [. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.




Boss: If you keep pointing out my lie- I will put you on ignore- and I mean it!


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly.  We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



To summarize : You said something different from what you claimed.  You are unwilling to admit it and so will pretend it is simply me trying to derail the conversation and ignoring context.

I don't know how much clearer it can be than to quote what you said and see that it is different from what you claim.  You want to put me on ignore?  Go ahead.  You want to move on from the thing you don't want to admit you said?  Go ahead.  Maybe you could actually answer my questions, the way I answered yours......but probably not.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 11, 2015)

Reversing the unconstitutional same-sex marriage decision will not be that difficult.  All that's needed is one constitutional lawyer to replace one of the activist lawyers.  That's why the election of a conservative president is vital.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



*I do not believe homosexuality is something that we have to change our culture and society radically and fundamentally to attempt normalizing it. *
I didn't ask if you believed it was, I asked you why. 

*I disagree that it has to be done, I disagree that our society is radically changed by the acceptance of homosexuality.*
Again... didn't ask you whether you disagree or agree. 

*I believe that all societies change over time and this is simply an example of that.*
But it's not an example of that. Society did not change the definition of marriage, in many cases, society solidified the definition by law and the SCOTUS made a 5-4 ruling to overturn what society did. 

*I don't believe that homosexuals are somehow unable to control their sexual urges.*
Again... didn't ask you what you believed. I asked why it is treated this way in our collective reasoning in determining a redefinition of marriage. And yes, I stated that a different way. 

As for any questions you've asked, I must have missed those in all the minutia over trivial grammar errors you want to nit pick and derail the conversation over.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.
> ...



Well... YOU are going on ignore right now.  Just for being a generally annoying antagonistic punk who never has anything of value to contribute to the conversation. You see, I don't respect you as much and Montro.. he has been known to actually engage in meaningful conversation at times, when he's not trying to be an obtuse smart ass. That's why he gets a warning and you do not.  

...Buh-bye punk! Nice knowing ya!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



LOL- like all cowardly bullies- Run Away! Run Away!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> Reversing the unconstitutional same-sex marriage decision will not be that difficult.  All that's needed is one constitutional lawyer to replace one of the activist lawyers.  That's why the election of a conservative president is vital.



LOL.....'all thats needed'......

Conservatives are so funny.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Boss basically is dishonest.

I pointed this out earlier in this thread when he lied about what he had said repeatedly before. 

Hell he is dishonest about his own OP- his screed calling for Americans to go back to discriminating against homosexuals- which he then pretends is nothing of the sort.

Just a bitter homophobe who is still scared that the big bad homosexuals all want to force him to have sex with him.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Now you expect me to accept your premise and proceed from there?  

1.  I can't answer why if I don't believe it is true.

2.  Luckily I am not limited to simply answering any questions you may ask.

3.  See 2.

4.  The definition of marriage was changing before the Obergefell ruling.  The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.  Same sex marriage was legal in multiple states before Obergefell, and while most were the result of court action, some were based on legislation or referendum.  Further, the idea of same sex marriage had been gaining acceptance among the populace regardless of the court ruling.  You may wish that the courts had stayed out of it and that same sex marriage didn't occur until every state passed legislation for it (or more likely, you hoped states would not) but that doesn't change that the number of people who are OK with same sex marriage has grown quite a lot in the past couple of decades.

Thanks for once again showing your hypocrisy in not answering my questions.  Your excuse that you 'must have missed those' isn't even flimsy.  You want others to answer all of your questions (and apparently accept the premise for those questions as well) but won't even go back a couple of posts to find and answer mine.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 11, 2015)

Canada has had same sex marriage for more than 10 years now. There has been noticeable impact on the rest of us except we occasionally get invited to weddings and anniversary parties for our gays friends. 

The American right's angst over gay marriage is laughable from my perspective. 

For people who do go on about YOUR religious freedom, you sure want a lot of say about other peoples' freedom of religion. 

Can you say "hypocrites" boys and girls?  I knew you could.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.



No, the definition of marriage has always been *the union of a man and woman.* The legal regulatory _parameters_ of marriage has changed. And now it has been established marriage can be whatever we need it to be in order to accommodate our sexual urges. So yes... it's gonna change radically.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Homos are Christophobic hateful bigots and should never be in a position of authority over decent people.  They're mentally ill.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Christo Fascists are hateful bigots who have attempted to force EVERYONE to obey their narrow anti-American fascist agenda for the last 200 years. Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.
> ...



No it hasn't. Boss just keeps lying about that.

Within the United States itself- the definition has included:
A man and several women
A same race man and a woman and for the last 11 years in the United States
A couple- regardless of gender.

Boss is both ignorant- and lies.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Homos are mentally ill perverts.  Go live your life. Marriage is a male and female and always will be.  Christians are good decent people.  God Bless America and Israel.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.
> ...



So marriage has never been, say, a man and multiple women?

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women.  For the past decade or more, that has been changing.  States, territories, even native tribes had incorporated same sex marriage before Obergefell.  Other nations have also allowed same sex marriages.  I do not know of any instance in which same sex marriage has been used as a winning legal argument to grant another previously disallowed union to become a legal marriage.  Have you heard of any such instances?

You say it has been established that marriage can be whatever we need it to be to accommodate sexual urges, but that's not based on the actual ruling.  That ruling, so far as I am aware, did not mention sexual urges nor use them as the ruling's basis.  Any later ruling which might use Obergefell as precedent could have a hard time if it makes claims about Obergefell which aren't there.  Obergefell cited equal protection and gender.  Did it say anything about accommodating sexual urges?  You may think that is the obvious real meaning of the ruling but I have seen no evidence that allowing same sex marriage leads to the various other forms of marriage you have talked about becoming legal.  Can you cite a single instance of a state or territory or nation allowing same sex marriage and then using that decision to allow pedophilia?  Zoophilia?  Necrophilia?  Immediate family marriages?  How about even polygamy?

There are a number of other nations where same sex marriage is legal.  In the Netherlands it has been legal since 2001, and before that they apparently had something like civil unions starting from 1995.  Polygamy remains illegal in the Netherlands.  I'm going to guess that they also don't allow people to marry animals or corpses, etc..  If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...



Many Christians are good decent people- as are many homosexuals. Which is not surprising since many Christians are homosexuals, and many homosexuals are Christians. And the ones I respect remember Jesus's first and second commandment. Unlike you. 

Christo Fascists are hateful bigots who have attempted to force EVERYONE to obey their narrow anti-American fascist agenda for the last 200 years. Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.

Why don't you want God to bless Canada or Great Britain?

Specifically why do you want to bless a nation which rejects Jesus, but not a country like Canada which is majority Christian?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And- in no country where polygamous marriage is legal- are homosexuals given equal rights- or allowed to marry.

Generally any country which allows polygamous marriage is as bigoted against homosexuals as Boss is.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed.



Judgement of homosexuality is in fact a taboo these days, while outright condemnation of those religious who oppose it is commonplace and acceptable. People who don't want to be judged are being the judges. Judging the beliefs of others.



Boss said:


> They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.



I have nothing wrong with someone being gay, with the exception that I think what they are and what they practice is a sin according to my faith. However, nobody should be treated differently in America, yet one of the demands the homosexual crowd makes is that they want to be accommodated... or treated differently... from everyone else. An irony to be sure.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.



Now, the victims are doing the victimizing, doing the very thing they themselves were trying to escape from. Don't delude yourself into thinking you suddenly gained a position of authority, because you have none. You have no authority to force the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on anyone. 

If I want to tolerate it or accept it, you let _me_ do that. Stay out of my decision. 

I've never once considered myself a victim because of someone being gay. I feel honored that I have the capability to be tolerant of them and have them as friends. In a world where one word can make an enemy of many, I chose to make friends with mine; where words, beliefs and preferences are respected. If only the world worked this way...


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> WWe've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied.



You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes? Did you photograph gay weddings and have to participate or else get shunned as a paahtay pooper?

Get real and honest. If you do have "_several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who"_ you_ "love very much_" then more's the pity for you. Them? I am sure if you are with them, as you present yourself here, they need nothing from you


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing.



Things don't change what they are and always have been. What you mean is, people have been redefining marriage to include something else, mostly through court rulings and legislative acts in defiance of the people. 

We're supposed to have a voluntary cooperative system, the genius of which is compromise. We have debates over ideas and resolve them through the process of give and take. We don't live in a dictatorship where one side forces it's viewpoint onto the rest of society and says... that's how it's going to be whether you like it or not... tough shit, we've got control of the court... fuck you!


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?



You answered it already, they don't have a 14th Amendment equal protection clause or SCOTUS.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing.
> ...



We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise.  The courts ruled that rights were being denies, specifically access to marriage laws.  I understand that you disagree with that decision, but why does it so often seem that when people disagree with a USSC decision they suddenly feel the court is 'activist' and overstepping their powers?  I don't think I've ever seen someone agree with the principle of a decision yet still call the court activist judges or tyrants or anything of the sort.  

You are right, we don't live in a dictatorship.  We do, however, live in a country with judicial review.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?
> ...



Only our system will lead from same sex marriage to various other forms of marriage?  OK, what about the fact that SSM was first legalized in the US in 2004?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing.
> ...



I'd also like to point out that while a majority of states have indeed had SSM legalized through the courts, a dozen or so did so through legislation.  It certainly has not been just a case of the courts forcing their viewpoint onto the rest of society.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So one must equal the other?

Mutually exclussive thought is dangerous and not compelling argument.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...






TemplarKormac said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed.
> ...



Odd you equate equal treatment with different treatment.

Lets use some examples- you as a Christian cannot be fired just for being a Christian- Federal law protects you from being fired based upon your religion.

But you as a homosexual can be fired for just being a homosexual- Federal law doesn't protect you from being fired based upon the gender you are attracted to.

I presume you are okay with Christians wanting to be 'accommodated' for your religion- and treated differently than everyone else.

Why do you think that homosexuals should not want equal treatment before the law?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise. The courts ruled that rights were being denies, specifically access to marriage laws. I understand that you disagree with that decision, but why does it so often seem that when people disagree with a USSC decision they suddenly feel the court is 'activist' and overstepping their powers? I don't think I've ever seen someone agree with the principle of a decision yet still call the court activist judges or tyrants or anything of the sort.
> 
> You are right, we don't live in a dictatorship. We do, however, live in a country with judicial review.



Anyone can present an argument their "right" is being denied! That is the point here... polygamists can claim they have a right... hebephiles can claim they have a right... incestophiles can claim a right...  zoophiles can claim to have a right. We do not redefine marriage to include their behavior as a right. We don't find public indecency laws unconstitutional because an exhibitionist claims he has a right to expose himself in public. We don't find DUI laws unconstitutional because someone has a right to drive and a right to drink.

Access to marriage was fully available to every homosexual in America. There is not one case of any state denying a marriage license to anyone on the basis of homosexuality. But marriage is a certain thing... it doesn't morph and change into whatever it needs to be in order to accommodate something else. I can't go get a marriage license then go rape someone and claim... well, I was just trying to "marry" them and that's my right.... why are you trying to deny my rights? Yeah, I changed the definition of marriage, so what?

YES... even our rights are based on debates and compromise, all the way down to our 1st Amendment rights. Even our most sacred and fundamental rights were debated and compromises were made, terms and conditions may apply.

The SCOTUS is not our judicial dictator, that was never intended to be the case. The limits and parameters of our rights are to be determined by US... the people! The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what WE decide. Our system is based on compromise. We decide these parameters together by debating and compromising... not judicial tyranny. Not Seth Rogen's "Fuck You" opinion.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Only our system will lead from same sex marriage to various other forms of marriage? OK, what about the fact that SSM was first legalized in the US in 2004?



Because the STATE did it and not the Federal government. We are a nation of states who have the authority and power to establish their own 'moral' boundaries through the ballot initiative process. My view is, the state does have the right to allow "same-sex marriage" but they don't have the right to call it "marriage" because it's not. Now, I suppose in the sense that it's defined as such it's kind of like "imitation crab" not being the same as "crab" but they still get to use the word. But nevertheless, we are still talking about the people and states making this decision through the process of debate and compromise and not by judicial tyranny or liberal fascist activism.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Too funny since you projected I'm the one running in circles after I pointed out that's what you're doing, huh?

Looks like you just came out of the closet since you just called your own behavior, _"gay OCD."_


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


They're some of his best friends, don'tcha know?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes?



No, smart ass.  First of all, we struck down the laws against sodomy because "what happens in the bedroom of consenting adults is not our business" and we disregarded those with moral objections.. in fact, we not only dismissed their opinion, we turned it into "homophobia" and made it abhorrent.

We allowed cities to hold "gay pride" parades all over the country. If anyone objected, it was viewed as bigotry and homophobia... hooted down and silenced. Everyone "bent over backwards" and cheered the trannies and queers celebrating their "coming out of the closet" deal... If you didn't want to be labeled a bigot and homophobe, that's what you had to support.  

Then we passed "hate crime" laws after the death of Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was beaten to death, supposedly because he was a homosexual. So again, we all "bent over backwards" and decided that we would apply a harsher penalty than normal for someone who assaulted a gay person. So now, if someone mugs my mother on the way home from the market, they get to go do community service while the mugger of the homo gets 6 months in jail, mandatory sentence. 

Then we "bent over backwards" by endorsing and supporting various actors and actresses portraying homosexual characters in movies and eventually television. Again, anyone who objected was hooted down as a bigot and homophobe. 

So this is what I meant when I said society bent over backwards. And now you have managed to have SCOTUS redefine marriage to accommodate something that most of America doesn't recognize as marriage. What's more... that's not going to do the trick! You can already see that gay marriage people think this is some great victory they have won and it's not. The social stigma associated with homosexuality is still alive and well. You didn't change Biblical scriptures or religious beliefs, and you won't change them. Homosexuals are no closer to "legitimacy" than they ever have been, you just think they are now because of this perceived "victory" in a SCOTUS ruling. Some of you think this is a "sign that society is moving ahead" but it's not that either... it's a sign that our system has a problem. Society wasn't given a choice here... if it had been up to society marriage would be defined as a union of man and woman. DOMA was legislated by society... politicians representing their voters.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Are you so desperate to find anyone that would find you attractive that you think everyone with OCD, gay?

Oh, I've made it clear many times, I am a male lesbian. 

Turns you on, don't it?


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > So a question is not a sentence?
> ...


You're fucking deranged.  

*question*

_a *sentence**, phrase, or word that asks for information or is used to test someone's knowledge_

(* = highlighted for the edification of the terminally stupid)


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I never said being OCD is gay. You've once again posted your hallucinations as though they are as real to everyone else as they are to you. And no, nothing about you "turns me on." You only wish for that since you now reveal you are gay.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Access to marriage was fully available to every homosexual in America.


Repeating this 1000 times will never make it true.

Would marriage have been fully available to you had your only option been to marry another man?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You want me, anyone can see that. Can't blame you, most women do. 

No need to deflect from you're clearly defeated argument. You can't come up with a single statute that requires sex as a qualifier for marriage. 

We progressives have learned long ago that you traditionalist wing nuts will deflect every time you see that you are getting ass kicked.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Access to marriage was fully available to every homosexual in America.
> ...



YES, but I could have just NOT GOTTEN MARRIED!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise. The courts ruled that rights were being denies, specifically access to marriage laws. I understand that you disagree with that decision, but why does it so often seem that when people disagree with a USSC decision they suddenly feel the court is 'activist' and overstepping their powers? I don't think I've ever seen someone agree with the principle of a decision yet still call the court activist judges or tyrants or anything of the sort.
> ...



Anyone can argue their rights are being denied, sure.  The problem is convincing the courts it is true.  You continue to argue that because the courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage, somehow that obligates them to rule in favor of any sort of marriage.  Why?  It's possible some sorts of marriage arrangements currently not legal will one day become legal based on similar arguments to Obergefell, but it is not some sort of automatic decision.  There are obvious differences between various arguments, including every one you've brought up.  Consent is the big one you consistently shrug off as though it is unimportant, but for something like polygamy, current marriage laws would not cover many situations.  For someone interested in marriage with an animal, animals cannot enter into contractual agreements.  Close relation marriages bring up issues of authority figures and coercion.  Just because the state was ruled not to have a compelling interest to prevent same gender couples equal access to marriage laws does not mean the same will be found for any couple or grouping.

Access to marrying a female was denied to a male based on their gender, and vice versa.

Marriage was a certain thing.  It is something slightly different now.  You don't like that but it doesn't change what civil marriage is in the United States today.

I will rephrase.  Our rights are based on the US Constitution.  Other than the original writing of the document and additional amendments, those rights are not up for compromise.

The SCOTUS is not a judicial dictator.  Your disagreement with this particular decision does not mean they are suddenly overlords wielding uncontested power or anything of the sort.  However, the court has long held the power of judicial review and determining whether laws fall within the guidelines of the constitution.  That power was, I believe, something taken from English law, which makes its roots older than the country itself.  There have been numerous USSC decisions over the years.  Do you consider the ones you agree with to be judicial tyranny, or is it only when you don't like their decision that they suddenly are dictatorial?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Only our system will lead from same sex marriage to various other forms of marriage? OK, what about the fact that SSM was first legalized in the US in 2004?
> ...



Again, you call this judicial tyranny, but I wonder if you feel the same about all USSC decisions?  What makes this ruling tyranny but not others, or are they all tyrannical?

Words sometimes change or have additions to their definitions.  You don't want that to be the case with marriage, but it is.  In the law, in dictionaries, marriage has changed to include same sex couples.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Not exactly true, the definitions you quote don't include all same sex couples, just the ones you think aren't icky.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Not all opposite sex couples are able to marry.  Does that mean that prior to same sex marriage being legalized, defining marriage as the joining of a man and a woman would be incorrect?

Also, I didn't quote any definition there.  Nor did I say anything about certain couples being 'icky'.  Not that you let what someone actually says stand in your way.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Stating same sex couples can marry is all encompassing. 

I will point out traditional wing nut positions every time I can. 

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes?
> ...


"We?"  We?  Give us a break. You did nothing yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't show up to protest every thing listed in your screed 

The Courts had to step in you weirdo fuck


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise.


If you believe that is so, can you please explain .. The *Ninth Amendment* (*Amendment* IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Of course we use the courts, but we use the courts to settle debates


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise.
> ...



I already changed the phrasing of that statement to be clearer in a subsequent post.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Anyone can argue their rights are being denied, sure. The problem is convincing the courts it is true. You continue to argue that because the courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage, somehow that obligates them to rule in favor of any sort of marriage. Why?



Well, it's called "case law" and it is often used by the SCOTUS in determining future cases. In fact, almost all cases. Justices don't wake up one morning and think... hmm, I've got to rule on this case today, let me see what the polls say and what Oprah thinks!  They base their rulings on cases already on the books... like Ogeberfell. 

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage? You want to present the very same compelling interests that were shot down in Ogeberfell. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to sanction same-sex marriage then you also have to sanction same-sibling marriage. The matter is complicated even further... now you have the potential of gay sibling marriage as well. Suddenly, the justifications regarding procreation risks are gone, two gay brothers can't reproduce. (Not that "sexual behavior" has anything to do with this anymore). 



Montrovant said:


> Marriage was a certain thing. It is something slightly different now. You don't like that but it doesn't change what civil marriage is in the United States today.



Unbelievable. Again, why do you and other nitwits on your side not comprehend that NO ONE HERE is arguing that SCOTUS did not make the 5-4 ruling in Ogeberfell! We all understand the SCOTUS ruled. We all understand what the law defines as civil marriage now. That is not something we can debate even if we want to. So why do you continue to try and make that the debate? 



Montrovant said:


> The SCOTUS is not a judicial dictator.



Well, in THIS case, they are. 



Montrovant said:


> For someone interested in marriage with an animal, animals cannot enter into contractual agreements. Close relation marriages bring up issues of authority figures and coercion.



And I have addressed both of these. Animals cannot give legal consent and are not subject to constitutional rights. That should not hamper the rights of the individual who owns the animal. It is not their fault the animal doesn't have constitutional rights and cannot give legal consent. On age of consent, you've presented no rational argument for why we have all the assorted and various arbitrary dates on a calendar to define when someone can give their consent. A "naturalist" would argue that human beings become sexually mature at about 12~13 years old, so any restrictions of their right to consent beyond that age is prohibitive of their rights. You present your barrage of "issues pertaining to this and that" as if that is not some kind of moral argument based on your own inhibitions. People opposed to gay marriage were "concerned about issues" as well... didn't fucking matter then!  Your "concerns about issues" do not trump civil rights. That has been established.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 12, 2015)

Every time I scroll past the thread title on this I do a double-take because I read "It's easier to CONDOM homosexuality"


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well, it's called "case law" and it is often used by the SCOTUS in determining future cases. In fact, almost all cases. Justices don't wake up one morning and think... hmm, I've got to rule on this case today, let me see what the polls say and what Oprah thinks! They base their rulings on cases already on the books... like Ogeberfell.



The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships.  You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.



Boss said:


> I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?



I have answered that at least 4 times now.  Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same.  More, it has been brought up that in at least one state, siblings are not allowed to marry under any circumstances while first cousins can so long as they cannot procreate.  This indicates that procreation is not the only argument the state has against familial marriages.

I have also said that I consider the argument against grandparents or parents marrying children stronger than that of siblings.  I don't expect siblings to be able to marry any time soon, but should the law be changed, I would guess it would happen for siblings and not parents and children.



Boss said:


> Suddenly, the justifications regarding procreation risks are gone, two gay brothers can't reproduce.



Again, if procreation was the only reason to prevent sibling marriage, one might think that infertile siblings would be able to legally marry.  Yet, they cannot.



Boss said:


> Unbelievable. Again, why do you and other nitwits on your side not comprehend that NO ONE HERE is arguing that SCOTUS did not make the 5-4 ruling in Ogeberfell! We all understand the SCOTUS ruled. We all understand what the law defines as civil marriage now. That is not something we can debate even if we want to. So why do you continue to try and make that the debate?



You are the one who continues to make declaratives about what marriage is or is not.  You said marriage is a certain thing.  You've said before that marriage is between a man and a woman.  In a discussion about civil marriage, when you declare marriage to be a certain way, why do you get upset when someone points out that the law disagrees with you?  If you said, "I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman no matter what the law allows" it would be different.  It sounds contradictory to say, "We all understand what the law defines as civil marriage now." and also say, "But marriage is a certain thing... it doesn't morph and change into whatever it needs to be in order to accommodate something else." and, "Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.".  



Boss said:


> Well, in THIS case, they are.



You have an odd definition of dictator.



Boss said:


> And I have addressed both of these. Animals cannot give legal consent and are not subject to constitutional rights. That should not hamper the rights of the individual who owns the animal. It is not their fault the animal doesn't have constitutional rights and cannot give legal consent. On age of consent, you've presented no rational argument for why we have all the assorted and various arbitrary dates on a calendar to define when someone can give their consent. A "naturalist" would argue that human beings become sexually mature at about 12~13 years old, so any restrictions of their right to consent beyond that age is prohibitive of their rights. You present your barrage of "issues pertaining to this and that" as if that is not some kind of moral argument based on your own inhibitions. People opposed to gay marriage were "concerned about issues" as well... didn't fucking matter then! Your "concerns about issues" do not trump civil rights. That has been established.



If you think animals should be able to enter into contracts, feel free to try and have the relevant laws changed.  I am confident you will have little success.  There is no real way to determine if an animal agrees to a contract, they cannot sign a contract, your hyperbole is silly.

I don't have a rational argument for why we have so many different laws regarding age of consent.  I wish we had a uniform system for the country rather than differences state by state.  Age of consent laws can often seem strange.  That doesn't invalidate the concept of consent in relation to age.

A naturalist can argue whatever they want.  If enough people agree, they can try to get the laws changed.  Age of consent laws have trended up rather than down, so again, I don't envision much success.  None of that changes that a marriage in which the two parties cannot legally engage in a romantic or sexual relationship is not going to be made legal based on the Obergefell decision.

People opposed to same sex marriage were concerned about issues.  The courts found their concerns less than compelling.  People opposed to interracial marriage were, I'm sure, concerned about issues.  Once again, the courts eventually did not feel those concerns were compelling.  The fact that the arguments against same sex marriage ended up being not strong enough to sway the court does not mean that arguments against polygamy, immediate family marriage, marriage to animals, or any other coupling you might come up with are now not strong enough to withstand scrutiny.  There are differences between all of those relationships which leads to different arguments for why they should or should not be banned.

Once again this boils down to you declaring that *this* particular change to marriage is the opening of the floodgates.  No other changes to marriage were profound enough, but this time, at some indeterminate point in the future, the Obergefell ruling will be used as the precedent to allow every other type of marriage.  I wonder, did you expect the Obergefell ruling to go the way it did?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Why do you think that homosexuals should not want equal treatment before the law?



They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else.

Wait, doesn't that defeat the purpose?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can argue their rights are being denied, sure. The problem is convincing the courts it is true. You continue to argue that because the courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage, somehow that obligates them to rule in favor of any sort of marriage. Why?
> ...



If you have an argument for incest marriage, make it. But demanding that we make your argument for you is....

.....lazy. 

Present your case. And be clear that its conservatives that are pushing for incest marriage. And polygamy.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that homosexuals should not want equal treatment before the law?
> ...



Where sexual discrimination is forbidden, everyone is protected. Same with gender. Or race. Or religion.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Right, but when it goes beyond that, when the modus operandi becomes suppression, submission and capitulation instead of "equality" it becomes a form of tyranny. 

And then there's that word "forbidden." What else will be forbidden? The opposition? The beliefs of others who oppose homosexuality?

Sexual discrimination is never going to go away. No matter how many times you sue someone over it.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



There's nothing particularly 'special' or 'tyrannical' about ordering a cake from a cake maker. There is something odd about a cake baker denying you a cake....based on who you fuck.

That's odd.


> And then there's that word "forbidden." What else will be forbidden? The opposition? The beliefs of others who oppose homosexuality?



PA laws don't regulate beliefs. They regulate actions. You can believe whatever you'd like. When you act in violation of the law, then you're subject to its penalties.

Just any other law. I mean....go 65 in a 35 zone and you'll get a ticket. Is that 'controlling beliefs'? Or is that regulating action?



> Sexual discrimination is never going to go away. No matter how many times you sue someone over it.



Absolutely? Of course not. But you can dramatically reduce its occurrence. There are far fewer folks telling black people that 'we don't serve your kind here' today than there was 50 years ago.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> There's nothing particularly 'special' or 'tyrannical' about ordering a cake from a cake maker. There is something odd about a cake baker denying you a cake....based on who you fuck.



I didn't say anything about public accommodation. Or cake bakers. I'm totally over that.

I am pointing out what happens when you actually do achieve equality. The equality now becomes a weapon to attack speech itself, the very beliefs of others who hold that opposition. Suddenly that "equality" isn't real, now one side wishes to have more standing in society than the other, to diminish their influence, to silence them. 

Gays have accused Christians for doing this, now I see them trying to do the same thing, now that they have their so-called equality.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing particularly 'special' or 'tyrannical' about ordering a cake from a cake maker. There is something odd about a cake baker denying you a cake....based on who you fuck.
> ...



Then you'll definitely need to get specific. As your accusations are uselessly vague.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Then you'll definitely need to get specific. As your accusations are uselessly vague.



Read the rest of my post, Skylar, I thought I was being specific...


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Then you'll definitely need to get specific. As your accusations are uselessly vague.
> ...



An example would be specific. Some vague reference to conditions that are utterly subjective and may not actually exist isn't specific.

If gays are looking for more than 'equality', show me.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You are fucking deranged. 



Pop23 said:


> No need to deflect from you're clearly defeated argument. You can't come up with a single statute that requires sex as a qualifier for marriage.
> 
> We progressives have learned long ago that you traditionalist wing nuts will deflect every time you see that you are getting ass kicked.


Deflect from what? You defeat your own argument better than I could have. You state sex is not a requirement for marriage -- but then can't explain if that's the case, why a gay brother and sister have never been allowed to marry.

And *poof *, just like that -- there goes your entire nonsense.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So not being allowed to marry the person you love and want to be committed to matrimony for the rest of your life is your idea of having marriage fully available to you?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Was it 'judicial tyranny' when the Supreme Court over rode the wishes of the people of Virginia and said it was unconstitutional to ban mixed race marriages?

I don't think so.

Not sure about Pops or Boss though

Seems like they are still upset about the 'judicial tyranny' that allowed mixed race couples to legally marry.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> If gays are looking for more than 'equality', show me.



As you wish. It's not just so much them, but how they've influenced the behavior of other people, regardless of their sexual affiliation (and for the record, not all of gays engage in this behavior, but they don't necessarily condemn it either):

Mozilla Employees Call for CEO to be Fired for Donating to Prop 8 Campaign | National Review Online
State Senator Claims His Wife Was Denied Job Because She's Against Gay Marriage
http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/08/18/teacher-opposed-to-gay-marriage-could-be-fired/

While Justice Alito was tailoring the question specifically to Universities and Colleges rooted in religious tradition losing their tax exempt status over their opposition to gay marriage, the wider implications can be seen in which churches themselves are drawn into the line of fire for _their _opposition to gay marriage:



> JUSTICE ALITO:  Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating.  So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same sex marriage?
> 
> GENERAL VERRILLI:  You know, I-I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I-I don't deny that.  I don't deny that, Justice Alito.  It is-it is going to be an issue.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf

A statement from Jeran Artery of Wyoming Equality:






Moreover, the incident with Memories Pizza goes without saying.

Then there's this:

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons | Fox News

So much as opposing gay marriage can lose you your job, or keep you from getting one. Your business could be in jeopardy even if you don't actively discriminate against homosexuals, simply having an opposition to gay marriage can hurt you. If you're a religious institution, whether a church or a school, beware that your tax exempt status may be in danger. Gays and their supporters have the government on their side, and they'll use them, to destroy you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You want to ban all marriages you find 'icky'.

And are upset that one of the kinds of marriage you find icky is no longer banned.

So you drag out your straw man in every thread.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?


The same compelling interests which were used to deny a gay man from marrying his lesbian sister prior to Obergefell.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > If gays are looking for more than 'equality', show me.
> ...



So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?

Do you blame all Christians when Christian organizations call for Ellen Degeneres to be fired because she is a homosexual?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Find that in the marriage licence law you right wing loon


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that homosexuals should not want equal treatment before the law?
> ...


Oh? What do they want that no one else has?


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?



I am. Who else has that kind of influence, if not from the gay rights lobby?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> So much as opposing gay marriage can lose you your job, or keep you from getting one. Your business could be in jeopardy even if you don't actively discriminate against homosexuals, simply having an opposition to gay marriage. If you're a religious institution, whether a church or a school, beware that your tax exempt status may be in danger. Gays and their supporters have the government on their side, and they'll use them, to destroy you.



Wow- so you are upset because you believe that homosexuals are acting like Christians have been acting for centuries?

Of course we have Christians in America actually calling for homosexuals- and those who support homosexuals- to be put to death.

Pastor calls for death of gays, lesbians


Another 'christian' Pastor Calls for Death to Gays

Gayapolis News - Another 'christian' Pastor Calls for Death to Gays
_Pastor Steven L. Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona, infamous for his virulently anti-gay preaching and open calls for gays to be put to death, seems to have found at least one acolyte eager to help him spread his message.
In August, Anderson ordained Pastor Donnie Romero, who then established Stedfast Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, where he preached the message last Sunday that all gays should to be put to death._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?
> ...



Oh Christians of course.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Do you blame all Christians when Christian organizations call for Ellen Degeneres to be fired because she is a homosexual?



No, I just blame the ones who do. But then again, I wasn't broad brushing anyone. Re-read my response to Skylar before responding to me further.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So, are you going to give them a pass for acting the same way you accuse Christians of behaving for centuries? Why aren't you upset that Islam holds that view, that Homosexuals should be put to death?

And here you were accusing me of painting homosexuals with a broad brush. Wow. Just wow. What an incredibly asinine argument, Syrius.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



To be logically consistent, he'd have to acknowledge that 'Christians' are demanding that CAIR lose its non-profit status because of things they've said about Ben Carson. And that 'Christians' are seeking status beyond equality.

Right, Templar?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing particularly 'special' or 'tyrannical' about ordering a cake from a cake maker. There is something odd about a cake baker denying you a cake....based on who you fuck.
> ...



Equality is never a weapon.

Opponents of homosexuals confuse criticism with attacks. 

Employees of Mozilla calling for their CEO to resign- why do you think they  don't have a right for their opinion? Why do you think the CEO of Mozilla had the right to be free from criticism?

Tell me- were Jews and minorities attacking when this CEO was sued?

*Revlon CEO Sued For Anti-Semitic, Racist Comments*

*Or how about this one?*
Tech exec fired for comments about California rampage - CNN.com
*The co-founder of Rap Genius, an online-annotation website, has been fired after marking up the 137-page manifesto of California killer Elliot Rodger with comments that are being called tasteless and creepy.*


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?
> ...


Wait ... did Eich openly endorse gay marriage or did he resign?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



[Guffaws]

Try rereading the question.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



LOL. You're moving the goalposts. Not participating in your game of merry-go-arguments.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



No- I am pointing out what crybaby victims you are trying to be. Christians happily persecuted homosexuals for 200 years in America- and to this day continue to do the very things you say that are signs that 'homosexuals are abusing their equality'- blaming homosexuals for things that non-homosexuals do. 

As for Islam- Islam has an even scuzzier history of bigotry towards homosexuals worldwide- but they have almost no influence in the United States- and virtually every anti-LGBT group is either openly Christian or strongly affiliated with Christian movements. 

There simply is virtually no real opposition to LGBT rights from Jews, Islam, Hindu's, Buddhists, etc- but if there was- I would be glad to bring them up too.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Christians have exactly that kind of influence, and do not hestitate to openly call for the firing of people merely for being homosexual- like Ellen Degeneres.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> To be logically consistent, he'd have to acknowledge that 'Christians' are demanding that CAIR lose its non-profit status because of things they've said about Ben Carson. And that 'Christians' are seeking status beyond equality.



LOL because CAIR openly engages in hostility against anyone who speaks out against Islam. Surely your logic would allow for that. right Skylar? Same methods same goals. Sorry, your argument falls flat on its merits.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> No- I am pointing out what crybaby victims you are trying to be.



Weren't you acting like the victims just before?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Reread the question again. I am pointing out the influence of the gay rights lobby, not of Christians.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?
> ...


At least you're consistent at being ridiculous, wrong, and a bigot.

Gay Americans have nothing to do with CEO's being fired – this is the same idiocy we heard more than a generation ago about 'the Jews' being involved in 'conspiracies' to 'manipulate' various aspect of American society – and a generation from now your nonsense about some 'nefarious gay cabal' will be likewise acknowledged as bigoted idiocy.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that homosexuals should not want equal treatment before the law?
> ...



Wow- wanting to be treated equally with Christians to you means wanting to be treated differently from everyone else.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they wanted to be treated legally with my wife and I.

The couples who wanted to get marriage licenses- they wanted to get marriage licenses like everyone else.

The couples who wanted to get served by businesses- they wanted to be protected by the very same law that protects Christians from discrimination.

Only the fervent imagination of the ignorant equates this to 'treated differently'.

Treat homosexuals the same before law- simple as that.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

By the way you two, CAIR already lost its tax exempt status, in 2010:


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You asked who else has that kind of influence?

I am pointing out that among the many groups that do, would include Christians. 

Why exactly do you think it is wrong for employees to call for the resignation of their CEO?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Wow- wanting to be treated equally with Christians to you means wanting to be treated differently from everyone else.



No. They want to achieve more than "equality." They have it. Good for them, but now "equality" doesn't seem to be enough. You are purposefully taking my statements out of context.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> By the way you two, CAIR already lost its tax exempt status, in 2010:



I am tempted to say- why would I CAIR?

Because I really don't.

Organizations that don't meet the tax free status lose their priveleges-whether they are Muslims, or Christians or Atheists.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Treat homosexuals the same before law- simple as that.



I have already made myself clear about that. See my statements in re to Kim Davis. I can support gay rights without supporting their behavior towards their opposition.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships. You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.



Neither did Loving or the 14th with regard to gay marriage. They don't mention anything about homosexuals marrying or redefining traditional marriage to include homosexuals. However, the 14th is very clear and has been clarified by SCOTUS repeatedly... you cannot discriminate against one group to the exclusion of another. The "reasons" we had before Obergefell are no more... they were struck down by the court. You claim that is just for gay marriage, I say it's not and it can't be, we have to allow it for all other similar groups without regard for our personal "ick" factor.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Wow- wanting to be treated equally with Christians to you means wanting to be treated differently from everyone else.
> ...



'Equality' doesn't seem enough- to you.

IF the law says that a business must serve a person regardless of their sexual orientation or religion- why is it okay for a business to refuse to serve a homosexual for being gay- but not okay for a business to serve a Christian for being Christian?

And- by the way- Christians are protected by law in all 50 states from discrimination from service- homosexuals are not protected by Federal law- only by state or local laws.

Still not legal equality- but much, much closer- and of course people object to that.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Treat homosexuals the same before law- simple as that.
> ...



I can support gay rights-and also ask business's and individuals to follow the law.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?
> ...



Except that those reasons have now been found unconstitutional by the Obergefell ruling.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships. You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.
> ...



Yeah- Boss keeps making the same asinine claims.

Quoting himself. Citing himself. 

What an idiot.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > By the way you two, CAIR already lost its tax exempt status, in 2010:
> ...



Hey, Skylar brought it up. They failed to file form 990 for three straight years. Skylar was unaware that they lost their status, and unfortunately for him, Christians had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Nope- none of those reasons- you just ignore any reasons you don't want discussed.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I'm not talking about the law, am I? See you make my case, using the government as a weapon as a means to take my argument down.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



WRONG. It's the law, which CAIR openly violated, is it not?

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So, it's okay for you and not for us. Please.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, they haven't. You repeating that doesn't make it so. All Obergefell did was rule against bans against those for whom no reason other than their gender, was used to deny them their right to marry.

It in no way validated other types of marriage which were also previously banned but for other reasons.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed.
> ...



Okay- since you seem to think I don't understand your theme in this thread- I am back to your first contribution.

"judgement of homosexuality is taboo these days'- yet hundreds of preachers and Christian groups do so all the time. Do they get condemned for it? Sure- but no one is stopping them.

Why should those who condemn homosexuals be free from condemnation? Why should homosexuals- or anyone who disagrees with discrimination against homosexuals- not condemn those who condemn homosexuals?

Hell- I don't hesitate to condemn racists for attacking African Americans- and i don't hesitate to condemn anti-semitic bastards for attacking Jews- why should I not condemn those who tell homosexuals that they are the equivelent of N*ggers and K*kes?

As far as wanting to be treated 'differently'- you have yet to establish that at all. 

So far all you have shown are people who are acting as other Americans act. And that is equality.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



LOL- I am saying that Americans have free speech- you Christians can make any hate speech against homosexuals you want- that doesnt' mean you will be free from criticism- but you are free to go on the pulpit and tell homosexuals that they are evil and will burn in hell- and you can gather together and try to get homosexuals fired.

I happen to think that 'boycotts' generally are pretty stupid- and firings are similar to that- but yes- Americans- Christians and Christian homosexuals- and homosexuals- all get to be stupid- but not free to be free from criticism.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Why should those who condemn homosexuals be free from condemnation?



And why should homosexuals who condemn the opposition to homosexuality be held free from condemnation? That's it, right there. My entire case, in its most succinct form. Wanting to protect oneself from condemnation is an aim higher than wanting to be equal with one's peers.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I have answered that at least 4 times now. Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same.



But all you managed to come up with are the same kind of moral reasons that were just rejected in Ogeberfell. The court literally ruled that "concerns" about what it "might lead to" are irrelevant in light of civil rights of the individual. They do not constitute a compelling enough state interest. 

Now, you are answering with what the law has said and what I agree the law should say. But that argument has been fundamentally changed by the Ogeberfell ruling now. The law can be challenged and it certainly will be. Those seeking to change the law will certainly cite Ogeberfell.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening. 

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques? 'Christians' trying to get Muslims deported from the US? 'Christians' calling for all copies of the Koran to be burned.

By your own logic, 'Christians' want to be more than equal. If not, why not?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships. You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.
> ...



"It" can't be.   The Supreme Legislature has voted and the 5 members of that illicit legislature overturned the Duly, Democratically Debated, Voted and Passed the bills voted on by the vast majority of the elected legislators, who were elected by the vast majority of the people, and which were signed into Law by the Chief Executives of the VAST MAJORITY of the States... and that vote decided that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to be MARRIED, by ANYTHING that consents to be married.

Now they claimed that the 14th Amendment demands such... and it demands such despite the substantial public interests in maintaining the natural standard, wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders; each respectively and specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other... the designed consequence of which being conception, which requires the nurturing of the female and the training by the male.

SO ... it is irrational beyond all other consideration for the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification through interaction with those of their own gender, to deal out the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification from those of their own family, or those who crave gratification from sexual interaction with other species, or corpses, _etc, etc; which is to say to deny these freaks, their government provided, phony baloney, plastic banana 'right to marry'._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes?
> ...




Boss is such a whiney homophobe who wants to play the victim. 
50 years from now, he will seem as 'quaint' as the racists blocking the doors to black students.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I happen to think that 'boycotts' generally are pretty stupid- and firings are similar to that- but yes- Americans- Christians and Christian homosexuals- and homosexuals- all get to be stupid- but not free to be free from criticism.



Why didn't you just say this to begin with? I agree, with this very much so.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Only our system will lead from same sex marriage to various other forms of marriage? OK, what about the fact that SSM was first legalized in the US in 2004?
> ...



Boss is still upset about all of those State's bans on mixed race marriages being overturned as being Unconstitutional.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No such ruling exists.  That you assign that drivel to Obergefell, does make it so.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I have answered that at least 4 times now. Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same.
> ...



The actual Obergefell decision? Or the imaginary bullshit you've made up and *call* the Obergefell decision. Remember, whenever you claim to be citing another source, you're almost always just quoting yourself.

Feel free to show us anywhere in the Obergefell decision they authorized sibling marriage, polygamy....or even mentioned them. 

Just don't hold your breath while you're looking. You'll definitely pass out.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes?
> ...



Just pointing out that Boss is lying.

Again.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships. You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.
> ...



So then when polygamy, immediate family marriage, marriage with animals, and whatever other couples you think are inevitably going to be recognized legally become legitimized, we can blame Loving for setting the precedent, yes?

One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest.  Obergefell doesn't change that.  Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws.  The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.

Obergefell did not change consent laws in any way.  It did not change marriage laws other than to grant access to same gender couples following the same rules as opposite gender couples.  It did not grant animals the ability to enter into contracts or marriages.  

While it is possible that this ruling may be used as a precedent at some point in the future, it would almost surely also include the previous precedent set by Loving, should that decision not have been made?  Did Loving make all forms of possible marriage inevitable?  Do you expect the courts to basically rule that since same sex couples can marry, there are no compelling interests in preventing adults from marrying children?  That the reasons for preventing that before Obergefell have magically disappeared?

No one but you and others who oppose same sex marriage have said anything about preventing forms of marriage because of an 'ick' factor.  If you wish to ignore the numerous times people have brought up reasons the state may have an interest in continuing to ban other various possible forms of marriage, that is your own issue.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> So then when polygamy, immediate family marriage, marriage with animals, and whatever other couples you think are inevitably going to be recognized legally become legitimized, we can blame Loving for setting the precedent... .



"We", will set the responsibility for that degeneracy, where it belongs, which is with the perverse reasoning OKA: Left-think, AKA: Relativism.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> The actual Obergefell decision? Or the imaginary bullshit you've made up and *call* the Obergefell decision.



OH!  So there's nothing then, that precludes law that forbids behavior that runs counter to the interests of the culture at large?

Wonderful... then what's all the fuss about?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:
			
		

> "It" can't be.   The Supreme Legislature has voted and the 5 members of that illicit legislature overturned the Duly, Democratically Debated, Voted and Passed the bills voted on by the vast majority of the elected legislators, who were elected by the vast majority of the people, and which were signed into Law by the Chief Executives of the VAST MAJORITY of the States... and that vote decided that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to be MARRIED, by ANYTHING that consents to be married.



The States don't have the authority to 'vote away' rights. With State marriage laws subject to constitutional guarantees. Take a look at the 14th amendment. Specifically the due process clause and the equal protection clause.



> Now they claimed that the 14th Amendment demands such... and it demands such despite the substantial public interests in maintaining the natural standard, wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders; each respectively and specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other... the designed consequence of which being conception, which requires the nurturing of the female and the training by the male.


"Nature" doesn't define marriage. We do. Outside human societies, there is no marriage. It exists no where save where we invent and define it. And it is what we say it is.

You keep insisting that your relativistic cultural preferences are objective reality. And I'm sorry my little relativist....but that's not how it works. Subjective is not objective. And your opinions



> SO ... it is irrational beyond all other consideration for the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification through interaction with those of their own gender, to deal out the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification from those of their own family, or those who crave gratification from sexual interaction with other species, or corpses, _etc, etc; which is to say to deny these freaks, their government provided, phony baloney, plastic banana 'right to marry'._



Save that homosexuality isn't incest. Or pedophilia. Or bestiality. Its merely unproductive, reproductively.

As is...masturbation. Head. Or old people fucking. Making gays no more or less 'deviant' than Nana and Pop-Pop knocking boots. Or you rubbing one out to the newest issue of Guns and Ammo.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > The actual Obergefell decision? Or the imaginary bullshit you've made up and *call* the Obergefell decision.
> ...



Who says that gay marriage runs counter to the interest of culture at large?

Let me guess.....you do. Citing yourself?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.



Yes I am, because the law demands it, not us Christians. See the failure of your logic here? We Christians didn't make that specific law. You can't do something that indicates political biases as a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

The government has already made clear the consequences.



Skylar said:


> How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?



If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.

Islam has the onus of being a religion on whose name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility. Ironically, we're discussing this subject on the very day that sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole, all due to radical Islamic terrorism 15 years ago.

The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians. I for one am for religious freedom, not only for my faith, but for all others. I don't condone that behavior. But there it is.



Skylar said:


> Christians' trying to get Muslims deported from the US? 'Christians' calling for all copies of the Koran to be burned.



Like I said, a small minority. Do you see me, an ardent Christian, calling for the sacred texts of other religions to be burned, or an entire religion to be deported from America?

That directly defies the foundations on which America was created.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I have answered that at least 4 times now. Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same.
> ...



Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read.  Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?
Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with the dangers of abuse of a familial relationship that I have read.  Can you show where it was argued that in homosexual couples one party often has too much power and influence over another?
Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with the inability to create a new family unit that I have read.  Can you show where it was argued that homosexuals are already part of a family unit and therefore would not create a new one if married?
Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with the inability of one or more parties to enter into a contract.  Can you show where it was argued that homosexuals cannot enter into a contractual relationship?

You say the court 'literally' ruled that "concerns" about what it "might lead to" are irrelevant in light of civil rights of the individual.  I think you may be misusing the word literally here, or is there a part of the ruling in which that is stated?

Obergefell may be used as a precedent in future marriage cases.  So might Loving, so might various other court decisions.  However, in every possible marriage relationship you have brought up, there are issues and concerns which are different from same sex marriage.  I don't know why you simply dismiss them, except that they don't conform to your narrative.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.
> ...



I don't want to speak for Skylar or Syriusly, but I think that they are bringing these things up because of the perception that you were speaking about all homosexuals based on the actions of a few.  That's the impression I've gotten from these posts, anyway.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.



Ogeberfell changes everything, that's why it is called a "landmark" case.  You and your pro-gay-marriage entourage seem to think this case exists in some kind of special judicial bubble and can't apply to any other future court case or ruling... it's really bizarre. We are asking you how you'll prevent these other special interests from "gaining their rights to marriage" the same way, and you are throwing us the very same reasons and arguments the SCOTUS (AND YOU) just buried.  

When that is pointed out, you say... Well it's not the law anywhere yet... but that's not a refutation of the argument. The ink isn't even dry on Ogeberfell yet... give it time... this will happen, guaranteed. Polygamists are on deck.  Next in the batting order will be siblings. After that, it will be zoophiles and everything else. You can't stop this now because you don't like the ride... it's the bad thing about getting your ass caught on a slippery slope. 

I mean... really, to me... it's just mildly entertaining to watch you people run around all stiff-assed talking about why we can't allow other people to love the ones they're with... because we all know that it poses a danger and risk and we have fears over what it might cause and what it may lead to... cue the choir singers... hallelujah ...hallelujah... now open you self-righteous mouth real wide and get ready for perverts to cram their immorality down your throat against your will. SCOTUS has ruled their civil rights trump your moral opinions. Congratulations!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Well, then let me kindly show you where I dispelled that notion:



TemplarKormac said:


> It's not just so much them, but how they've influenced the behavior of other people, regardless of their sexual affiliation (and for the record, not all of gays engage in this behavior, but they don't necessarily condemn it either)


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I don't think it's me who needs that quote.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.
> ...



Actually its Christians demanding that the law requires it. So yes, Christians are calling for the revocation CAIR's non-profit status.

By your own standards.




Skylar said:


> How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?



If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.
[/quote]

Ground Zero and all the other Mosque protests around the country. That's pretty tyrannical. How did you put it?

"The modus operandi becomes suppression, submission and capitulation instead of "equality" it becomes a form of tyranny."

Trying to prevent people who believe differently than you from being able to build places of worship in a location they have every right to meets your every description.

And these were undoubtedly 'Christians'. So by your logic, Christians were trying to prevent people who believed differently than they did from building places of worship.



> Islam has the onus of being a religion on who's name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility.



Ah, so you're trying to justify the tyranny, the the suppression, the submission and capitulation instead of equality......*by blaming the VICTIMS of the tyranny, suppression, submission and capitulation. *

As to the best of my knowledge, none of the folks who were trying to build that mosque (or others like it elsewhere that Christians protested) committed any terrorist act. But you're still blaming the victims?

Huh.


> The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians.



I'm applying the same 'they' that you did. Remember when you said '*They've* gone beyond wanting equality, *they* want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else."

That's the 'they' that I'm referring to. But with Christians instead of gays.

How am I inaccurate? As i remember, you didn't make any distinction between 'some gays' and 'all gays'. Instead, you just said 'gays'. As in:

"Gays have accused Christians for doing this, now I see them trying to do the same thing, now that they have their so-called equality."

Sound familiar. It should. Its your words.

So I'm using your lingual patterns, applying them in the exact same way you are. But oddly, you reject my comments as 'being in error'. Perhaps. But then we're both in error. As my usage is yours.

Also, wouldn't your own reasoning fail in terms of justification for discrimination against Muslims....as 'some' Muslims aren't 'all Muslims'? But oddly, you didn't use your own standards when trying to justify your blaming of the victim.

I note some......inconsistency......in your argument.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I know you're crazy, so who knows what you think Obergefell ruled on?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.
> ...



Then show us the sections of Obegefell that authorize incest marriage and polygamy. Or even mentions either.

Remember, we're talking about the ACTUAL ruling. Not the bullshit you've made up and merely call the Obergefell ruling. I'll even help you. Here's the actual ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show us. Don't tell us.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.
> ...



First of all, you quoted only one part of a post in which I said that Obergefell may be used as precedent in a future ruling.  That makes your claim of me thinking the ruling exists in some sort of judicial bubble and can't apply to future cases pretty foolish.

How will I prevent other groups from getting rights to marriage the same way?  Obviously I won't have anything to do with it.  As you've been told, over and over, there are differences in each case and it is a question of if the courts feel there is a compelling interest in preventing equal access to the law, or as with polygamy, marriage law does not cover such a relationship and so equal access does not apply.  The fact that the courts decided that one group of people should not be prevented access to marriage law does not mean the same is true of any group.  You still seem to think that there are no differences between the various relationships you've brought forth as examples of marriages which must be allowed based on Obergefell.

Polygamy may end up being allowed, but those relationships do not fit into current marriage law.  Same sex marriage can use all the same laws, it is only a change in the gender of the couple.  Having more partners necessarily changes the way various aspects of marriage work.  Again, different argument than with Obergefell and requires more than simply saying, "Well, same sex couples can marry, so can 3 or more participant relationships!".

Infertile siblings could not marry prior to Obergefell.  Other than procreation not being an issue with same sex siblings, what aspect of Obergefell would have an impact on any sibling marriage ruling?  Again, the reasons for preventing immediate family members from marrying are different from the reasons for preventing same sex couples from marrying.

Zoophiles....you love to bring that up and ignore the fact that an animal cannot enter into a contract.  You have to change consent and contract law before the courts would have any reason to hear a case about a person marrying an animal.  Obergefell has no impact on consent laws nor who can legally become part of a contract.

Slippery slope....like the one that was feared from the Loving decision?  I guess we would have been better off without that ruling, huh?

Your last paragraph is just whining.  "Same sex marriage is immoral, so every possible marriage that is immoral must be allowed!"  You seem to have a lot of issues with fear of things being crammed down your throat.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Actually its Christians demanding that the law requires it.



No it isn't. The law demands it. I won't repeat myself.



Skylar said:


> I'm applying the same 'they' that you did. Remember when you said '*They've* gone beyond wanting equality, *they* want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else."



Ahh, so a tu quoque argument. Right.



Skylar said:


> How am I inaccurate? As i remember, you didn't make any distinction between 'some gays' and 'all gays'. Instead, you just said 'gays'.



Actually, in your haste you ignored the quote where I said "not all gays engage in this behavior."

It's easier to condemn homosexuality | Page 159 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Skylar said:


> Ah, so you're trying to justify the tyranny, the the suppression, the submission and capitulation instead of equality......by blaming the VICTIMS of the tyranny, suppression, submission and capitulation.



No. You are employing a type of circular logic.



Skylar said:


> So I'm using your lingual patterns, applying them in the exact same way you are. But oddly, you reject my comments as 'being in error'. Perhaps. But then we're both in error. As my usage is yours.



That's no way to engage in a debate. Make your own arguments, not fashion yours based off of mine. You are a very impressive debater, Skylar, show it. The higher road is there, take it.



Skylar said:


> As to the best of my knowledge, none of the folks who were trying to build that mosque (or others like it elsewhere that Christians protested) committed any terrorist act. But you're still blaming the victims?



No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Perhaps.

Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?



Skylar said:


> Also, wouldn't your own reasoning fail in terms of justification for discrimination against Muslims....as 'some' Muslims aren't 'all Muslims'? But oddly, you didn't use your own standards when trying to justify your blaming of the victim.



This qualifies as you twisting my statements. Radical Islamic Terrorists seek to distinguish themselves from moderate Islam, yes they are still a part of Islam. That is a demand that one uses discriminatory judgement "we are not them."

And where did I say anything about discriminating against Muslims?

This is actually a case of the prey hunting the hunter.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ogeberfell changes everything


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Actually its Christians demanding that the law requires it.
> ...



Its Christians demanding that the law demands it. And insisting that CAIR's non-profit status be revoked....because of something they said:



> *Carson Wants IRS To Revoke Tax Exempt Status For Muslim Advocacy Group*
> 
> Carson Wants IRS To Revoke Tax Exempt Status For Muslim Advocacy Group



I'm pretty sure that article says 'Carson wants IRS to revoke Tax Exempt status'. You can try to remove the role of Christians from this. But reality doesn't magically expunge them because you 'said' otherwise.

CAIR said this:

"We ask Mr. Ben Carson to withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are in contradiction with the United States Constitution."

Carson demanding that their non-profit status be revoked because of what they said.....is pretty tyrannical.



> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > I'm applying the same 'they' that you did. Remember when you said '*They've* gone beyond wanting equality, *they* want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else."
> ...



You mean applying _your_ standards....._to you_?

I'm under the impression that's called 'consistency'. And if you aren't applying your standard to yourself, we have a word for that too.. hypocrisy. As its clearly not the standards you believe in.

I'm using the exact same 'they' that you did. Its not my fault your 'they' was 'in error'.


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > How am I inaccurate? As i remember, you didn't make any distinction between 'some gays' and 'all gays'. Instead, you just said 'gays'.
> ...



And when have I said its all Christians. I've merely said 'Christians' have done x, y or z.

Exactly as you did regarding gays. But its an 'error' when I do it. But not when you do it? I don't think you're gonna make much headway with that kind of blatant inconsistency.



> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so you're trying to justify the tyranny, the the suppression, the submission and capitulation instead of equality......by blaming the VICTIMS of the tyranny, suppression, submission and capitulation.
> ...



How so? If you're going to claim a logical fallacy.....you're gonna need more than just to make the accusation.

Explain how that's 'circular reasoning'. Remembering of course that any standard that you apply to me also applies to you.


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm using your lingual patterns, applying them in the exact same way you are. But oddly, you reject my comments as 'being in error'. Perhaps. But then we're both in error. As my usage is yours.
> ...



Hypocrisy isn't a way to debate. And by failing to apply the standards you apply to me to yourself....

.....you demonstrate that you don't actually believe in the standards you're applying.

And that doesn't work for me.


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > As to the best of my knowledge, none of the folks who were trying to build that mosque (or others like it elsewhere that Christians protested) committed any terrorist act. But you're still blaming the victims?
> ...



So again, blaming the victims. Or at the very least, insinuating that the victims are to blame because of something that you know you can't factually support. But you'll allude to anyway.

That's no way to debate, Templar. *Argument by insinuation is the lowest form of debate. *As it doesn't involve actual evidence. You're better than that. Either back up your claims with evidence and make your argument.....or cut the conspiracy addled leading question nonsense.

*That's better suited to truthers and flat earthers. *Not a conversation among the informed.

Oh, and Ground Zero isn't the only instance I'm referring to. There are many other protests against mosques by Christians.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

You know what? I'm not playing this "but I'm doing what you did!" game. Make your own point.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> You know what? I'm not playing this "but I'm doing what you did!" game. Make your own point.



So your standards only apply to me. But not _yourself._

Nope. They apply to both of us. You'll just need to get used to that idea. Its the bare minimum of any rational debate.

As for my 'own point', I've made several.

First, you're blaming the victims...if they're Muslim.  You've accused me of a 'circular argument'. I've demanded you back that up with a rational argument. The accusation alone isn't going to cut it. Make your case.

Second, you're arguing by insinuation.



			
				TemplarKormac said:
			
		

> No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?



You don't actually present an argument or take a position. You merely insinuate an argument you  know you can't factually support. That's beneath you. And a waste of my time.

Make your argument with evidence....or leave the truther leading question nonsense to the truthers.

Third, more than just the Ground Zero mosque was subject to Christian protests. You'll need to address that.

Fourth, Carson is calling for CAIR to be removed from non-profit status. Says who? Says Carson:

IRS: Take Away Muslim Group’s Tax-Exempt Status

You can try to remove Christians from the equation, but reality doesn't change to match. You'll need to address that.

Please proceed.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> So your standards only apply to me. But not _yourself._



Actually, the same standards you're applying to me, you're violating yourself. First, you accused me of pinning all gays to the behavior of some,  yet in your language, you consistently use the word "Christians" in its plural.

Second, you accuse me of engaging in arguments of insinuation, when here you are doing the same thing regarding Christians.

You don't make a point by making the same mistakes you accuse your opponent of making... to make your point.

Circular logic.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Note: Carson, not Christianity, called for the revocation of CAIR's tax exempt status, yet another argument by insinuation.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

And as aside, I consider the whole Mozilla fiasco to be thuggish. I think its contrary to the interests of gays as it makes them look like sour winners. Prominent gays themselves have argued as much. However, most of the folks calling for Eich to resign...weren't gay.

They were straight. 

My point in bringing up the issue regarding Christians is to point out that the behavior you're condeming as 'tyranny' is as normal as breathing. Christians do it. Blacks do it. Whites do it. Women, straights, jews, Hindus, Native Americans....you name it. 

Making your singling out of gays in particular.......too narrow.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> They were straight.



Of course they were, hence why I mentioned "influence." I never said all of them were gay.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So your standards only apply to me. But not _yourself._
> ...



And your reference to 'gays' was singular? Again, any standard you apply to me....applys to you.

You're not getting around this.


> Second, you accuse me of initiating in arguments of insinuation,  when here you are doing the same thing regarding Christians.



How so? I've given specific examples and made specific arguments, offering the words of Christians themselves as evidence. I've claimed that Christians want CAIR to have its non-profit status revoked. And I've quoted Carson himself arguing this, from his own website.

That's not insinuation. That's evidence.

You've merely made another vague accusation that you can't back up. Like your claim that my accusation that you're blaming the victims was 'circular reasoning'. You just abandoned that.

And in this case, your accusations against those trying to build the Ground Zero Mosque:



			
				TemplarKormac said:
			
		

> No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?



That's straight up argument by insinuation. As you've presented jack shit to back any of it. You don't even have the balls to make your accusation. You offer it in the form of a series of leading question.

Like some truther. Its beneath you.

Make your case to back up your insinations. Or conceded you don't have the evidence to make your argument.



> You don't make a point by making the same mistakes you accuse your opponent of making to make your point.
> 
> Circular logic.



You don't seem to follow what circular logic is. Its using your conclusion as your evidence.



			
				Circular Reasoning said:
			
		

> type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.



Your profound misunderstanding of what circular reasoning is....might explain why accused me of it when I claimed you were blaming the victim. And then abandoned the claim, refuse to address it, refuse to even quote me addressing it.

Try again. This time using the term's actual meaning. Rather than inventing your own as an awkward attempt at deflection.

*And I'm still waiting for you to explain how my accusation that you were blaming the victim was 'circular logic'. That's not going away either. *

Off to dinner. I'll be back later to see if you did better this time around.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Oh, and you demanded I make points of my own....and then ignored every single one of them. Here they are again.

First, you're blaming the victims...if they're Muslim. You've accused me of a 'circular argument'. I've demanded you back that up with a rational argument. The accusation alone isn't going to cut it. Make your case.

Second, you're arguing by insinuation.



			
				TemplarKormac said:
			
		

> No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?



You don't actually present an argument or take a position. You merely insinuate an argument you know you can't factually support. That's beneath you. And a waste of my time.

Make your argument with evidence....or leave the truther leading question nonsense to the truthers.

Third, more than just the Ground Zero mosque was subject to Christian protests. You'll need to address that.

Fourth, Carson is calling for CAIR to be removed from non-profit status. Says who? Says Carson:

IRS: Take Away Muslim Group’s Tax-Exempt Status

You can try to remove Christians from the equation, but reality doesn't change to match. You'll need to address that.

If you're going to ignore the very arguments you asked for, do tell me in advance. It will save me time in preparing them.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.
> ...



Wow- what hypocrisy.

Seriously- you are okay with Christians objecting to the building of a mosque- a 'church'- because some Muslims are terrorists.

And then you say you are one for religious freedom. 

What about the freedom of those Muslims to build their 'church' in the United States?

It wasn't the survivors of the attacks of 9/11 who were attacking the concept of a mosque in New York- it was driven by Christians who opposed the building of a mosque.

And this is not the only mosque that Christians have demanded not be built in America.

But let me point out- homosexuals- who have every reason to feel threatened by Christians and Christianity- are not trying to prevent the building of any churches.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.
> ...



What cowardly hypocrisy. 

You are pissed off that gays can marry- and then accuse everyone who is pleased about marriage equality for gay couples of trying to cram our morality down your throats- when you would prefer actually cramming your morality- legislating your morality against everyone you don't approve of.

What an asshole.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?



You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being. 

Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment? 

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You say the court 'literally' ruled that "concerns" about what it "might lead to" are irrelevant in light of civil rights of the individual. I think you may be misusing the word literally here, or is there a part of the ruling in which that is stated?



Read the dissenting opinion.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

The whole idea of debating or being a great debater is admitting when you're wrong, and being a gracious loser. I am not so obstinate that I will continue objecting in the face of a superior argument. I was wrong. Admittedly so. It is wrong to deny someone to build a place of worship because of what faith they are and what connotations are associated with it. I directly contradicted myself on that point. Broadbrushing is an insincere argument. I am not an expert on argumentative fallacies. Mea culpa.

Oh by the way... I will ask anyone who feels tempted to gloat over this admission of defeat:

Can you admit to defeat as easily as I can? I'm not afraid to lose. I learn by debating. I'm not afraid of taking people on. 

Skylar, you win.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.



Okay, given what I've learned, I'll approach this from another angle, with the simple question of "why?" What's wrong with being tolerant?

Everyone is demanding tolerance, but are unwilling to be themselves. Naturally it is easier to be intolerant, because it takes effort to be tolerant. You can't have the reward without the effort.



Boss said:


> We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied.



How not? I don't have to bend over backwards for my gay friends. A mutual respect is all we need.



Boss said:


> One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.



Are you trying to scare us? 



Boss said:


> At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this?



You can be tolerant without being "PC."



Boss said:


> It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore



After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being.



That isn't really relevant to the effects of the Obergefell decision, is it?  That would still be true if the court had ruled same sex marriage bans are constitutional.  It would still have been just as possible for consent laws to be lowered allowing for the pedophile marriages you've said are coming.



Boss said:


> Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment?



If you consider a judgement on when a person has the maturity to make a decision about having sex a moral one, then no, I do not have a non-moralistic reason.  I am unsure of the best way to deal with abortions for someone so young and it is not a discussion I care to have here.  Abortion would likely end up as a huge derailment.  The compelling interest in consent is not a personal judgement, rather a societal one.  The varying ages of consent laws reflect differences of opinion about maturity and age in different parts of the country.  As I've said, I would prefer that consent laws be consistent nationally.



Boss said:


> And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?



I have given reasons to deny immediate family marriages at least five separate times now.  I've also stated repeatedly that arguing against adult siblings marrying is a murkier proposition than arguing against grandparents or parents marrying children.  If you want to view it as a moral hangup, that's fine.  All law can be broken down to moral judgements.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?
> ...


Why are you so eager for siblings to marry?


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 13, 2015)

RE pedo: Not allowing 13 year olds to marry isn't a "moral" issue, it's a consent issue, it's a matter of if the child in question is mentally able to consent or not.  If anything the age of consent will continue it's long-standing trend of going /up/ in America, as well as the rest of the world.  The /original/ age of "consent" for marriage was 7, over the years it's been raised to 16-18 in most countries; I believe it's 14 in Minn or Wis, can't remember which state.

Even if we had a set "age" for the entire country, there is still made a judgment of the individual's mental capabilities in the case, so for example in some states a 20 year old in a relationship with a 15 year old could avoid criminal punishment if the 15 year old (and his/her parents) could show that the 15 year old was mature enough to make that decision for herself/himself.  There isn't actually a hard and fast rule for age of consent across the country, nor is the matter settled on any specific "age" across the globe.  

Similarly my son who is 16, even if the age of consent is 16, I could /easily/ legally object to him having a relationship with an older girl just on the basis that he's ADHD which almost always leads to a lag in maturity. (It'd actually be a bit of a lie on my part cause my kids pretty damn mature for his age, but that's beside the point.)  As a parent I have the power to 'interfere' on my sons behalf, even if he disagrees with me, until he's 18 (the age of maturity.)

So basically, in order for pedo legalization to go through, you have to claim not only that millions of people (to meet a threshold of social pressure) want to have relationships with kids, but also that millions upon millions of parents would not object to said pedo relationship on their child's behalf, and Hell the state could bring the case themselves on the basis of potential child abuse through CPS and/or the school, a doctor, etc., and then a Judge would /also/ have to agree that it was a legally consented to relationship.  It's just not going to happen...

Frankly, the US has a better chance of randomly sinking into the sea than pedo getting legalized does...


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?



Well, I think it becomes "okay" when they turn in to authoritarian and totalitarian fascists and stop being people we can reason with and reach agreement through mutual cooperation and compromise. When they've lost all respect for decency and democracy and seek to inflict their immoral ideology onto the rest of us against our will. 

You can read whatever you like into my OP, I can't stop your perceptions. If you have someone who has a drinking problem you don't continue to placate them, accommodate their every need, ply them with more alcohol in hopes of satisfying them. That approach is never going to turn out well for you or the alcoholic.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> RE pedo: Not allowing 13 year olds to marry isn't a "moral" issue, it's a consent issue, it's a matter of if the child in question is mentally able to consent or not.



Nonsense. It is a *moral determination* you've _*arbitrarily*_ made that has absolutely nothing to do with any individual's personal mental ability. As I pointed out, a 13-year-old is apparently "mentally able" enough to give their consent for an abortion without their parent's permission. So it depends on what we're talking about, doesn't it? And it's funny how this "mental ability" changes suddenly for all individuals when the calendar reaches a certain date corresponding coincidentally with one's date of birth.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> The /original/ age of "consent" for marriage was 7, over the years it's been raised to 16-18 in most countries; I believe it's 14 in Minn or Wis, can't remember which state.



So as you demonstrate, this thing you refer to as "consent" is not set in stone. It can be changed (and has been) to meet with whatever "moral" parameters society wishes to set. Not only that, but unlike the institution of traditional marriage, it is relatively easy to change and is already different from state to state. 

As I pointed out earlier, a "naturalist" (person who believes in laws of nature) might argue that a human being reaches sexual maturity at puberty, therefore, any subsequent restriction of their right to consent sexually beyond puberty constitutes a denial of their right to consent. The ONLY justification is a moral one.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Why aren't you?

It makes at least as much sense as same sex marriage, don't you think?


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> So basically, in order for pedo legalization to go through, you have to claim not only that millions of people (to meet a threshold of social pressure) want to have relationships with kids, but also that millions upon millions of parents would not object to said pedo relationship on their child's behalf, and Hell the state could bring the case themselves on the basis of potential child abuse through CPS and/or the school, a doctor, etc., and then a Judge would /also/ have to agree that it was a legally consented to relationship. It's just not going to happen...
> 
> Frankly, the US has a better chance of randomly sinking into the sea than pedo getting legalized does...



You are making some broad assumptions without much legal footing. First of all, let's clarify that "pedophilia" is the sexual attraction to young children, usually up to age 9~10.  Most rational people recognize the "wrongness" of this on a moral level BUT... in Muslim culture, it is actually acceptable practice to have sex with small children and even to marry them in some cases. Everyone doesn't march to the same moral drum. 

Next, age of consent laws vary. A 13-year-old girl doesn't need her parent's permission to give her consent for an abortion. So does she have the mental capacity to take another human life but not to determine who she loves or wants to have sexual intercourse with? And... in the many cases where underage persons can legally give consent with parental permission... is there some special quality that parental permission bestows upon their mental capability to consent?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?
> ...



Didn't you say that it was actually heterosexuals behind the gay rights movement?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > So basically, in order for pedo legalization to go through, you have to claim not only that millions of people (to meet a threshold of social pressure) want to have relationships with kids, but also that millions upon millions of parents would not object to said pedo relationship on their child's behalf, and Hell the state could bring the case themselves on the basis of potential child abuse through CPS and/or the school, a doctor, etc., and then a Judge would /also/ have to agree that it was a legally consented to relationship. It's just not going to happen...
> ...



Since age based laws are generalizations, parental permission is likely a way to allow for exceptions.  Practically speaking the courts cannot determine the maturity level of every individual for every age-based law or regulation.  Parental consent allows for mature youths to get an exception to the normal age of consent.  That would be my guess as to the intent.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Didn't you say that it was actually heterosexuals behind the gay rights movement?



Yes, I am including them by association.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > RE pedo: Not allowing 13 year olds to marry isn't a "moral" issue, it's a consent issue, it's a matter of if the child in question is mentally able to consent or not.
> ...



It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based.  There needs to be a set age if such laws exist.  The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.

Of course people don't have a sudden change in maturity on a certain date.  The age is set (one would hope) at a level when the great majority of people would be mature enough for whatever activity the age based law revolves around.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?
> ...



It is against the law.

YOu and your sibling have every right to go to court to argue that you have the constitutional right to marry each other. 

IF Alabama cannot come up with a sufficient reason why you cannot marry your beloved sibling- then the State does not have a good reason- so why should it be illegal?

Your reasoning is that sibling marriage should be illegal because it is icky- which is the basis of your objection to 'gay marriage'- you equate the two.

But the courts- and the State will not.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Clearly to you same sex marriage is the same thing as a brother marrying his sister.

The courts and states disagree.

If you can't think of any reason why siblings should not marry- that is not our problem.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Since age based laws are generalizations, parental permission is likely a way to allow for exceptions. Practically speaking the courts cannot determine the maturity level of every individual for every age-based law or regulation. Parental consent allows for mature youths to get an exception to the normal age of consent. That would be my guess as to the intent.



Intent and legal justification are two completely different things. You are clearly saying that we "allow for" all kinds of arbitrary changes regarding legal consent. On what basis are you "allowing" someone to freely consent or disallowing said consent? You admit that it's generalized and government cannot determine maturity level of every individual. And yet, that is your main #1 argument (maturity level) for not allowing change? 

*Parental consent allows for mature youths to get an exception to the normal age of consent.*

How do we know the youths are mature? On what basis is that determination being made? And why do some people get an exception while others are denied their right to consent? Because of the parent? Have we tested the maturity level of the parent? And what would constitute a good test of maturity in your mind? Define that for us... what does _"sufficient maturity level to legally consent" _look like?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?
> ...



I.E. Boss objects when gay Americans are treated equally before the law.

As long as Gays 'knew their place' he says he was okay with them- and you do know- 'some of his best friends' are gay.

Its just that Gays are getting too uppity now for Boss- and he thinks its time to act before Gays are forcing him to have sex with him.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> The whole idea of debating or being a great debater is admitting when you're wrong, and being a gracious loser. I am not so obstinate that I will continue objecting in the face of a superior argument. I was wrong. Admittedly so. It is wrong to deny someone to build a place of worship because of what faith they are and what connotations are associated with it. I directly contradicted myself on that point. Broadbrushing is an insincere argument. I am not an expert on argumentative fallacies. Mea culpa.
> 
> Oh by the way... I will ask anyone who feels tempted to gloat over this admission of defeat:
> 
> ...



Very gracious. 

Changing a position due to listening to an argument is a rare quality here at USMB.

Well done.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?
> ...



Like the actual words- which are offensive to an extreme.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based. There needs to be a set age if such laws exist. The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.
> 
> Of course people don't have a sudden change in maturity on a certain date. The age is set (one would hope) at a level when the great majority of people would be mature enough for whatever activity the age based law revolves around.



Again... what is "mature enough" in your opinion? Is it the same as my opinion, Pops opinion, Syriusly's opinion? Do we need a simple majority or super-majority? Or, do we need a minority but with 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices to enforce our viewpoint? 

These are great questions we need for you to answer for us. Also... this arbitrary thing we've now introduced called "maturity level" ...what is that exactly? I think the entire left-wing radical pro-gay-marriage bunch are woefully immature and have not reached the maturity level of rational adults. Can we restrict your right to consent? What about if we get 5 of 9 justices to say we can?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based. There needs to be a set age if such laws exist. The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.
> ...



Of course opinions differ.  If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change.  Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people.  SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.

If you don't understand that each individual's opinion does not make law, you will not be able to have any sort of discussion about laws.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Of course opinions differ. If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change. Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people. SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.
> 
> If you don't understand that each individual's opinion does not make law, you will not be able to have any sort of discussion about laws.



Seems to me there is no duly-elected representation with regard to the decision made by SCOTUS in Ogeberfell. In fact, the decision strikes down the viewpoint of the duly-elected representation. So your argument that this is something we can determine through duly-elected authority is invalidated. The question IS being raised about the constitutionality of age of consent laws, I am raising it, you are avoiding a sufficient answer. The justifications you raise are no different than the moral justifications raised against homosexual marriage. Those have now been rejected.. you can't deny people their "rights" based on your moral objections.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Of course opinions differ. If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change. Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people. SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.
> ...



You don't seem to agree with the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.  Obergefell was not the first time the court struck down what they considered an unconstitutional law by far.  

Until age of consent laws are determined to be unconstitutional, they absolutely are something to determine through elected officials.  My argument has in no way been invalidated.  Just because laws are restricted by constitutional protections does not mean that laws are no longer created and adjusted through the legislature.

Now you seem to be arguing that any reason based on morality is invalidated by Obergefell.  You base that on.....well, nothing that I can see.  What part of Obergefell invalidates moral arguments?  Obergefell was ruled based on equal protection and a lack of compelling interest in denying same sex couples from access to marriage laws.  What is it about that decision, different from any previous court decision, which makes any argument based on morality invalid?

The justifications for age of consent are entirely different than the justifications for same sex marriage bans.  Same sex marriage was never banned based on lack of maturity of the participants or age of the participants.  Age of consent is based on a societal determination that a person is not yet ready to make decisions about certain acts; same sex marriage was never banned because the participants were not yet ready to decide to marry.  Age of consent laws are obviously temporary restrictions which end when a person reaches a certain age.  Same sex marriage bans were permanent; no age could be reached in which a person would be allowed to enter into a same sex marriage.

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.  

You have not given evidence or example of how the arguments for age of consent are in any way the same as the arguments against same sex marriage, except in that all arguments are based on a perception of what is right or wrong.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 13, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> Reversing the unconstitutional same-sex marriage decision will not be that difficult.  All that's needed is one constitutional lawyer to replace one of the activist lawyers.  That's why the election of a conservative president is vital.



Wrong. Despite Roberts dissent, he won't vote to close the barn door.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based. There needs to be a set age if such laws exist. The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.
> ...



We 'arbitrarily' set ages for many things including:

consent to have sex
consent to be married
minimum age to get driver's license.
minimum age to vote
minimum age for certain types of jobs.
Boss if just flipping out because he doesn't understand or respect the concept of 'Consent' when it comes to sex and marriage

He still thinks that his forcing Angelina Jolie to marry him, would be the equivalent of two men consenting to marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Of course opinions differ. If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change. Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people. SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.
> ...



We all know that is what you believe. 

The Supreme Court has overturned state marriage laws 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia.

It appears that you are still upset that the Supreme Court ruled and mixed race marriage bans were overturned.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 13, 2015)

The whole point of my post was that there /is/ no set age of consent and that it's /always/ changed over time; it would likely have continued to change regardless of SSM legalization or not. 

You also failed to respond to this argument:

"Similarly my son who is 16, even if the age of consent is 16, I could /easily/ legally object to him having a relationship with an older girl just on the basis that he's ADHD which almost always leads to a lag in maturity. (It'd actually be a bit of a lie on my part cause my kids pretty damn mature for his age, but that's beside the point.) As a parent I have the power to 'interfere' on my sons behalf, even if he disagrees with me, until he's 18 (the age of maturity.)"


Until a "child" is an adult and on their own, a parent can /always/ step in on their behalf and object to the relationship.  They can report the unwanted advances and relationships to the police and have the child's partner investigated for child abuse.  A child quite simply does not have the full set of rights, their parents have "custody" of a number of their rights.  

To legalize pedo marriage, you are not arguing changing "morals," you are not arguing that the SCOTUS is standing up for personal rights by allowing it, you are actually arguing that the SCOTUS has the ability to override parental rights - you are arguing that a court would willfully override a parents choice not to allow their child to have a pedo relationship.  The argument is bullshit, and it's never going to happen, much less is it going to happen because of SSM.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well, I think it becomes "okay" when they turn in to authoritarian and totalitarian fascists and stop being people we can reason with and reach agreement through mutual cooperation and compromise.



Surely you don't think they're all like that?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> When they've lost all respect for decency and democracy and seek to inflict their immoral ideology onto the rest of us against our will.



So far I've had nothing forced on me against my will.  This eye for an eye thing is childish.

If they lose all respect for decency and democracy, that doesn't mean we should.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> If you have someone who has a drinking problem you don't continue to placate them, accommodate their every need, ply them with more alcohol in hopes of satisfying them.



Oh boy...

This is a non sequitur if I ever did see one. 



Boss said:


> That approach is never going to turn out well for you or the alcoholic



Excising a group of people from our culture because they're not like you is never going to turn out well for anyone.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No I don't, ya pervert.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Excising a group of people from our culture because they're not like you is never going to turn out well for anyone.



If only liberals understood this regarding conservatives!


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Any law can be looked at as based on morality.



That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Any law can be looked at as based on morality.
> ...



I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Excising a group of people from our culture because they're not like you is never going to turn out well for anyone.
> ...



If only people understood that this is a two way street.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



All morality is individual.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense.  You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum.  I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements.  It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.

Now, I am a very libertarian-minded individual when it comes to morality and the laws. I know a lot of you won't believe that in a million years, but that's who I am in real life. I personally do not care one way or another if "domestic partners" of any kind are afforded any benefits that our government, society or culture may have established for "couples" in contrast to individuals. I don't care if a brother and sister want such a contract... I don't care if a father and daughter want such a contract... I don't care if two gay lovers want such a contract... I don't care if traditional Christian males and females want such a contract.  I think that should be left up to the two parties to decide if they are 18 years or older. That is MY personal view.

I don't WANT government involved in this... from EITHER aspect. I don't want them telling me that "marriage" is THIS... what _WE_ say with _OUR_ court! _Fuck you!_


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 14, 2015)

What about the 30 states who had /already/ "redefined" marriage to include homosexuals prior to the SCOTUS ruling? 

FYI 30 out of 50 is a majority...


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> FYI 30 out of 50 is a majority...



Not how our system works.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > FYI 30 out of 50 is a majority...
> ...


Pretty funny since you reject how our system works. Most notably,  you reject the judicial power of the Supreme Court and their function within our framework of government.  You even seem to be under the delusion that a 5-4 decision is less authoritative than a 9-0 decision.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Boss still upset that America has a Constitution that among other things- protects Americans from the persecution by the majority.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.  

I've said before, I think there is effectively 0 chance of marriage being removed from our laws in the near future.  A change of the name is possible; I could see marriage becoming civil unions for all as at least possible.  Removing marriage laws as they stand and having people create their own contracts instead, however, I cannot see.  This is especially true because there are certain aspects of marriage which I do not think would be allowed through basic contract law.  In particular, the formation of a new immediate family bond where one did not exist.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well in addition- essentially no one but Boss wants such a change. 

There is no legislative interest in eliminating legal marriage- and it is less likely to go away than Social Security or the deduction for mortgage interest.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.



Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope) 

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the _OPPOSITE_ of this. 

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're _not_ free to do this and our collective morality _isn't_ important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.
> ...



Horse shit describes all of your anti-gay screeds.

The Supreme Court created nothing new. The Supreme Court ruled only on the Constitution- just as it had 3 times previously regarding unconstitutional state laws.

You are still just butt hurt that homosexuals- your closest friends- can now get legally married.

And of course you are still terrified that those bad gay men will try to force you to have sex with them.

What a putz.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.
> ...



That you disagree with a court decision does not invalidate the power of the court to make the decision.

Society absolutely gets to establish its morality into laws.  This is not an exception.  If society feels that the court was in error a constitutional amendment can be passed to reverse the decision.  Of course, considering society is far from generally opposed to same sex marriage at this point, I don't think that's likely.

Society decided that we would have our constitution and the amendments within it.  Society has decided that judiciary has the power to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution.  That is what occurred.  As so often seems to happen, you are equating disagreement with a decision with the court being activist and overstepping their authority and whatever else you might use to describe how the court should not have been able to make the decision they did.  You are far from the first person to feel that way after a USSC ruling they disagreed with.

Yes, homosexuals could obtain a marriage license anywhere and not be questioned as to their sexuality.  Of course, a woman could obtain a marriage license to join with a man, while a man could not do the same based entirely on his gender.  The court felt that violated equal access to marriage law.  Sorry you disagree.

Upholding the constitution is not the same as upholding what you consider to be the proper interpretation of the constitution.  Everyone probably disagrees with some decisions of the court.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> That you disagree with a court decision does not invalidate the power of the court to make the decision.



That's true.  What invalidates the power of the court to make that decision is that it is a deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to exploit the ignorant.  (That means that 'the decision' is a lie.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Yes, homosexuals could obtain a marriage license anywhere and not be questioned as to their sexuality.



Establishing that Homosexuals were not being discriminated against.  Demonstrating the Lie common to the case brought that resulted in the decision and the decision itself.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.
> ...


Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > That you disagree with a court decision does not invalidate the power of the court to make the decision.
> ...


Aww. Poor, baby.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No, I can't think of a reason, outside of tradition, that I couldn't live without it. And of heard others say the same. 

Face it, this is a civilcontract, between two people and to qualify?

Sign papers

Pay Fee

Other than that, it has not much value past inheritance and estate. Both accomplished easily by other means.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I actually agree with the above.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What Faun posted is a nearly complete interpretation of what happened. 

The State ha to find a Compelling reason to deny the individual it Constitutional right. The bar is set extremely high in this regard because once declare a Constitutional right, the State must meet the Strict Scrutiny Test. That is for all our protection to have the bar set so high. 

That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right. 

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction. 

That, in actuality is what should be debated.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why, it was incredibly well done. 

Kudos


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well no one will force you to get married then- or ending your marriage.

Meanwhile- there is no indication that virtually anyone other than Boss agrees with you- and would like legal marriage to end.

Certainly though- you are as welcome to pursue legislative change as you are to go to the courts to argue for your right to marry your sibling.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Blabbering noted


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



go ahead and debate it. 

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Then you should start a thread on it.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I believe there are multiple states that require a license to own a firearm.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State. 

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Back atcha


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Of course, what else could you do but have others think for you?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Actually it is more than just concealed carry.  Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says you.

Quoting you.

Feel free to cite a Supreme Court ruling which says anything like that. 

If you want a citation about the State's rights to regulate marriage, feel free to read the DOMA decision or Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You do realize the post I gave you Kudos for contains the same argument for legal same sex sibling marriage? Right?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



True, and you fail to grasp that implication. Regulating rights is what your fighting against.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



With strict scrutiny and/or due process.  

Correct, which is my argument to begin with.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I've never said that my arguments are more valid than SCOTUS decisions. I don't know why you seem to want to think that is the argument we are having. I don't have any authority over the court nor have I claimed any. 



> Society absolutely gets to establish its morality into laws.  This is not an exception.  If society feels that the court was in error a constitutional amendment can be passed to reverse the decision.  Of course, considering society is far from generally opposed to same sex marriage at this point, I don't think that's likely.



Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore. 



> Society decided that we would have our constitution and the amendments within it.  Society has decided that judiciary has the power to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution.  That is what occurred.



No, it's NOT what occurred. Bans on "gay marriage" did not violate the constitution any more than bans on "sibling marriage" or "rape marriage" or "animal marriage" or any number of other things that ARE NOT marriage. SCOTUS literally had to create something that did not exist then established a constitutional right to it. This is above and beyond any authority ever envisioned for the court. Society NEVER agreed to be governed by an oligarchy of people in black robes. 



> As so often seems to happen, you are equating disagreement with a decision with the court being activist and overstepping their authority and whatever else you might use to describe how the court should not have been able to make the decision they did.  You are far from the first person to feel that way after a USSC ruling they disagreed with.



It's NOT disagreement with their decision. It is disagreement that they should have even heard the case. The court is not there to change laws and right perceived injustices. They are charged with upholding the laws we have established without regard for their personal opinions. What they did here was to legislate a new law from the bench. That is not within their constitutional power... never has been. 

It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiments in principle or not... they aren't there to rule based on sentiment. We have a legislative branch which we elect to represent our sentiments and codify those into laws. The SCOTUS is there to uphold those laws... not rewrite them by creating new things and new rights that didn't previously exist. THAT is what I object to, not their intentions or sentiments. 



> Yes, homosexuals could obtain a marriage license anywhere and not be questioned as to their sexuality.  Of course, a woman could obtain a marriage license to join with a man, while a man could not do the same based entirely on his gender.  The court felt that violated equal access to marriage law.  Sorry you disagree.



A man had exactly the same right to obtain a marriage license with a woman and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the definition of marriage. The Court's "feeling" is not supposed to be the basis of their rulings. The Court may, at a future date, have "feelings" for a brother wanting to marry his sister.... or a woman wanting to marry her rottweiler. Is it alright if they want to willy-nilly change that too, based on sentiments? What about age of consent laws? What if the Court "feels" that a 12-year old should have their constitutional right to legally consent? 

To me... this is the difference between an activist court and a court functioning as it was intended, it has nothing to do with my agreement with their ruling. You think the SCOTUS can rule based on their "feelings and sentiments" and I think they should rule based on law and the constitution, and in complete disregard for personal sentiments. 



> Upholding the constitution is not the same as upholding what you consider to be the proper interpretation of the constitution.  Everyone probably disagrees with some decisions of the court.



There is not a goddamn thing in the Constitution that was upheld with regard to Obergefell.  It was a lawless ruling made by an activist court. They established something that previously did not exist (gay marriage) and then they established a constitutional right to it that also did not previously exist. The case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. They had no jurisdiction in this, they certainly had no authority to create new laws and rights out of whole cloth, and they didn't have the authority to impose their personal sentiments on all of us with the power they are entrusted with. But that is what happened.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Houston transgender bathroom bill debate centers on differing definitions of 'men' - Washington Times

Houston is now trying to pass a "gender rights" bill that allows transgender men to use public restrooms intended for women. Proponents claim a fundamental right is being denied and they demand equal rights. 

*...people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.*

How many hundreds of examples do you need of society denying marriage to "person of choice" as a matter of law? Pop has been raising the issue of sibling marriage for days... same thing... people being denied their "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choice.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

The basic misunderstand here is the way the USSC determines if a law is constitutional or not.

My opponents in this thread seem to want same sex marriage to be judged legal by use of the Strict Scrutiny test, which is the basis used when a Right is declared Constitutional, but......

When it comes to same sibling marriage the State only has to Judge its constitutionality using the rational basis test.

So here goes:

SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied. The argument was that the State denied same sex the right to marry based on traditional values and their lack of the ability to procreate.

Their winning argument was for the strict application of the law. Since many opposite sex couples can not procreate or do not procreate, they are being denied licenses even though they were essentially the same as those couples. 

Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.

Folks, if you WANT marriage judged on the rational basis test, I'm cool with that, but then the authority shifts to either a state vote or state legislators.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.



Oh but they DO explain why... they hypocritically run back to the 'rational basis' test which was just rejected by Obergefell!   It's amazing! They don't bat an eye and they look at you like you've lost your mind to suggest such a thing as sibling marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Now I have to determine if I'm wrong...



Pretty safe fucking bet you are wrong... you should always go with that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.
> ...



And they don't see the danger of their own argument.

If rational basis arguments are legitimate, the 14th amendment does not apply. Not just to same sex siblings, not just to same sex, homosexual or not, but to all.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You see, this is exactly why I say you're an abject idiot. There's no compelling reason to ban same-sex people from getting married. There are compelling reasons for why siblings can't get married regardless of their gender or sexuality. You've been shown this 100 times and you still don't get it. You never will. Why? Because you're an object idiot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And I've demonstrated how all those that have been brought forth meet the rational basis test, not the strict scrutiny test. 

If you would like we could discuss that further. 

But I think you know better and will default back to the "because it's icky" defense.


----------



## Idadunno (Oct 15, 2015)

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Idadunno said:


> Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.



And if you idiotically want to rationalize our rules of law on the basis of what can be substituted in and out of various speeches, we are in some more serious trouble. Karma IS a real bitch and many of you morons are going to understand that soon enough. 

No one was being *denied* any damn thing here. Homosexuals could still be homosexuals. No requirement to disclose your sexuality in any state when obtaining a license of marriage. No same-gender marriage allowed to anyone because that is not marriage. The court literally changed what is defined as marriage and did so on the basis of accommodation. They have established marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, which as Pop is pointing out, now must be considered using the "strict scrutiny" test, which means... every adult pairing who wishes to obtain a marriage license must be allowed to do so, regardless of your moral objections. 

Yep... Karma, she IS a bitch!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says you.

Quoting you.

Feel free to cite a Supreme Court ruling which says anything like that.

If you want a citation about the State's rights to regulate marriage, feel free to read the DOMA decision or Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

_If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT_

Oh heck- you were just trolling.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Idadunno said:
> 
> 
> > Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.
> ...



Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Idadunno said:


> Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.



Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore. 

Sucks to be you I guess


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Idadunno said:
> ...



Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test. 

Which is what you deny others.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Okay- so you were just  lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights

_If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT_

Oh heck- you were just trolling.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore.



It has always been the case that the USSC's rulings require an amendment (or future court ruling) to overturn.  Obergefell did nothing to change that.  Nor did Obergefell create a new law.  It overturned laws the court deemed violated constitutional protection.



Boss said:


> No, it's NOT what occurred. Bans on "gay marriage" did not violate the constitution any more than bans on "sibling marriage" or "rape marriage" or "animal marriage" or any number of other things that ARE NOT marriage. SCOTUS literally had to create something that did not exist then established a constitutional right to it. This is above and beyond any authority ever envisioned for the court. Society NEVER agreed to be governed by an oligarchy of people in black robes.



Are you sure you understand what 'literally' means?  The court did not create something that did not exist.  Same sex marriage existed before Obergefell.  Marriage being ruled a fundamental right happened before Obergefell.  The court is part of government; society absolutely agreed to that.  The power and responsibility of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws is long established, agreed to by society.  Nor is the court suddenly some sort of dictatorial overlord.



Boss said:


> It's NOT disagreement with their decision. It is disagreement that they should have even heard the case. The court is not there to change laws and right perceived injustices. They are charged with upholding the laws we have established without regard for their personal opinions. What they did here was to legislate a new law from the bench. That is not within their constitutional power... never has been.
> 
> It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiments in principle or not... they aren't there to rule based on sentiment. We have a legislative branch which we elect to represent our sentiments and codify those into laws. The SCOTUS is there to uphold those laws... not rewrite them by creating new things and new rights that didn't previously exist. THAT is what I object to, not their intentions or sentiments.



The court is not simply there to uphold the laws, but also to overturn those it determines violates constitutional protections.  You disagree that such protections were being violated.  Now you are saying the court shouldn't hear cases because, what, ruling in a certain way might have a changing effect on society?  If the parties have proper standing and the arguments presented are compelling enough to warrant it, of course the court will hear cases.  Again, I see this as your disagreement with the ruling.  Had the court ruled the other way and allowed same sex marriage bans to stand, I strongly doubt you would have complained that they shouldn't have heard the case.



Boss said:


> A man had exactly the same right to obtain a marriage license with a woman and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the definition of marriage. The Court's "feeling" is not supposed to be the basis of their rulings. The Court may, at a future date, have "feelings" for a brother wanting to marry his sister.... or a woman wanting to marry her rottweiler. Is it alright if they want to willy-nilly change that too, based on sentiments? What about age of consent laws? What if the Court "feels" that a 12-year old should have their constitutional right to legally consent?
> 
> To me... this is the difference between an activist court and a court functioning as it was intended, it has nothing to do with my agreement with their ruling. You think the SCOTUS can rule based on their "feelings and sentiments" and I think they should rule based on law and the constitution, and in complete disregard for personal sentiments.



All the times you've complained about minutae being brought up and you're going to complain about my use of the word feel?  Fine, the court decided that a man being prevented from marrying another man based on his gender was denying equal access to law; a woman being prevented from marrying another woman based on her gender was denying equal access to law.

You keep bringing up things the court might do as though these things were not just as possible before Obergefell.  How did the Obergefell ruling make it possible for the USSC to rule age of consent laws unconstitutional where they could not before the ruling?



Boss said:


> There is not a goddamn thing in the Constitution that was upheld with regard to Obergefell. It was a lawless ruling made by an activist court. They established something that previously did not exist (gay marriage) and then they established a constitutional right to it that also did not previously exist. The case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. They had no jurisdiction in this, they certainly had no authority to create new laws and rights out of whole cloth, and they didn't have the authority to impose their personal sentiments on all of us with the power they are entrusted with. But that is what happened.



Once more : same sex marriage existed before Obergefell.  No matter how many times you say the court created something completely new, it is untrue.  Something like 30 states already had legal same sex marriage when the Obergefell ruling was made, not to mention various other nations also having legal SSM.  Your continued descriptions of the court creating some previously nonexistent form of marriage or simply wrong.

The court had no jurisdiction in this?  Dismissed based on lack of standing?  Based on what, exactly?  The parties involved certainly were the ones denied marriage, so they seem to me to have standing; it wasn't someone suing because someone else couldn't get married.  The USSC is the highest court of the nation, the last court cases go to when there are questions of constitutionality.  How then was this case outside the court's jurisdiction and why should it have been dismissed for lack of standing?

What new law has been created?  Do you have the text of this law?  I was under the impression the courts ruled that same sex couples must be given access to already existing marriage laws.

EDIT : Changed constitutional to fundamental regarding marriage as a right.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Your masters must love you


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Same sex siblings. That's who

Racist, bigot

Wanting them to qualify under a different standard than you. 

Shame on you. 

Equality will never bow to you haters. 

Never


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> The basic misunderstand here is the way the USSC determines if a law is constitutional or not.
> 
> My opponents in this thread seem to want same sex marriage to be judged legal by use of the Strict Scrutiny test, which is the basis used when a Right is declared Constitutional, but......
> 
> ...



From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



But since we are talking about constitutional civil rights, let's try to stay on track, shall we?

When can the government tell a black male when he can or can't be black?

When can the government tell a female when it is acceptable to vote?

You understand that the restrictions you mentioned earlier fall under the "your rights end where mine begin" philosophy".


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The basic misunderstand here is the way the USSC determines if a law is constitutional or not.
> ...



True, but in both intermediate and strict scrutiny, the burdon of proof lies on the shoulders of the Government.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore.
> ...



Obergfell created a paradox , a vacuum as it were, without providing reasoning. Kicking the can down the road. It did not need to do so.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Idadunno said:
> 
> 
> > Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.
> ...



And today it's same sex siblings. 

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Idadunno said:
> ...



And who do you think that I am 'hating'? 

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Says you- citing you. 

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And who do you imagine 'my masters' are?

I find your fantasies rather amusing- since so far every post you have made is nothing more than your flights of fantasy.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why are you conversing with yourself?

Will you answer yourself also?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



When have I every said gay couples could not marry?

So your premis is in error


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you  saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So you think rights are a static thing. When did this static position start?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I think you got the drift, you obviously don't like the questions and the answer to your questions contained within it. That's what haters do, they deflect.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



My position has been clear from the beginning.

I oppose same sex sibling marriage. I oppose any family marriage. But under the constraints of rulings such as Obergfell and Windsor, I can find no sound legal reasoning to prohibit them. Especially when sex is not a qualification to marry. 

You?


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You've demonstrated nothing other than you're an abject idiot and a troll who fantasizes of nothing except brothers marrying each other.

Meanwhile, you've been shown compelling reasons why states are rightfully denying marriage to immediate family members. Comically, you _think_ if you don't agree with those reasons, they don't exist. But regrettably for your senility,  not only do they still exist, but states still rely only on them to maintain bans on marriages between immediate family members.

And "icky" isn't a compelling reason. You only keep throwing that strawman out there because you got yourself seriously bitch-slapped when you tried using that reason to deny same-sex marriage. No one here resorts to that as a compelling reason to deny marriage to immediate family members.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Obergefell did not cause sex to not be a requirement of marriage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Idadunno said:


> Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.


Imagine how Boss feels then? He's waiting for gay men to shove their penises in his mouth.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You said you're against their right to marry.

Bigot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Who said it did?

You on the right thread?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Where?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now?  Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



More specifically- the argument that procreation was a rational clearly was not the reason why Wisconsin and other states prohibited siblings from marrying- fertile or infertile- while having  special provisions for First Cousins- which allowed them to marry- but only if they were infertile.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



As you note- you are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- *why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?*


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



When have you ever actually answered any question?


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Deflection again.

My post points out that your 'arguments' are you citing yourself- quoting yourself

And:

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You understand equal protection, Right? The 14th amendment and such?

Was this the societal safe guard that Syriously's Judge Crabb spoke of?

By Joe, I think it was.

Pity that safeguard has been lessened


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No deflection indeed. Due to your limited ability to comprehend simple concepts, I needed to understand the context. 

And, indeed it is a paradox, or your a bigot, Which?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



10 x more than your side combined. 

Can't you count?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So I'm the ultimate arbiter?

Cool, I also have the winning powerball numbers. 

Nope, not telling you!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That wasn't actually an answer to the question.  If you are trying to say that procreation is the answer and the reason infertile siblings were prevented from marrying is in order to have them treated equally to fertile siblings, why then are there laws preventing fertile cousins from marrying but allowing infertile ones to do so, as linked to by Syriusly?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The State HAD the right to regulate how marriage was administrated I guess. I would also guess that they were borderline on if those couples were "too closely related". Oh, and no one can be more "too closely related" than siblings (other than the actual parent, cuz damn, they are intensely closely related). 

Clear enough for the third time?

Now, have you found any reason why in Wisconsin, opposite sex cousins have to PROVE infertility to marry, but same sex cousins would not?

Or do you think that same sex cousins shouldn't have too?  Seems incredibly stupid to make such an outlandish request. Then shouldn't the same rules apply to both couples?

Just another of the many paradoxes that Obergfell created. 

Curiouser and Curiouser.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I do not see any reason same sex cousins should have to prove anything regarding fertility in Wisconsin to marry.  In that instance procreation is clearly the greatest factor in the decision whether or not to allow marriage. 

Should the same rules apply to both couples?  I assume by both couples you mean opposite sex and same sex cousins.  Yes, the same rules apply.  Only couples who cannot have children together can marry if they are first cousins.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

*Pop23:* _SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied_

*Montrovant:* _From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny._

*Pop23:* _True_​
Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself. 

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



But the burdon of proof then is applied to only one set. 

Don't you find that a bit odd?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This isn't a gender or orientation case. 

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied. 

Nice try though.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Strict scrutiny

Defining protected classes: Same-sex marriage and judicial scrutiny

Get back to me after learning something

K?


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Deflection again.

My post points out that your 'arguments' are you citing yourself- quoting yourself

And:

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



When did I say that you said gay couples could not marry?

Once again- you mis-quote me.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I think instead I will ignore your attempts at deflection and repeat my point- lets be clear about what you were not responding to

Who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?


----------



## jillian (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



given this pointless and bigoted thread, I think you calling others simple-minded probably is something you shouldn't do.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



This thread has been 'dead' since the OP.

However, you and Boss keep repeating the same old bullshit- regardless of the response you are given- despite the 'example' you ask for being provided.

You and Boss are allowed to ignore the facts and keep posting even thought the thread is indeed dead.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Clearly I can count better than Pops- who still can't count any 'examples' except for the one he has provided.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Another nutball deflection from you.

As you note- you are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- *why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?*


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



'had to'?

The State decided to 'regulate' marriage by not allowing any siblings to marry- regardless of fertility- and allow First cousins to marry- but only if they were infertile.

Since fertility is clearly not the reason why Wisconsin prohibits siblings from marrying- why does "too closely related" matter for siblings- but not First cousins?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Poor silly Pops

He thinks anyone who refutes his posts is a racist.

Apparently he thinks his idiocy is because of his race- whatever that is.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2015)

jillian said:


> given this pointless and bigoted thread, I think you calling others simple-minded probably is something you shouldn't do.



What the fuck are you gonna do about it? Use the 14th Amendment and get your liberal activist court to pass a new law against my freedom of speech rights? I don't give two shits what you think I should or shouldn't do... I didn't ask you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



When did I say you said what you think I said.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nah, it's how you argue against equality that makes you a racist you silly bigotted goose


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You can ignore us equality fighters all you want. That's what bigots do.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny. 

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I am proud of Pops. He actually posted a citation- actually 2 citations.

Of course they don't actually address the issue directly- since of course he doesn't quote Obergefell.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I also didn't quack like a duck while posting a link to how civil rights cases are determined. Although, my ability to do duck call is simply amazing.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yes- you 'freedom fighters' want to deny marriage to gays and siblings.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yet Obergefel doesn't mention strict scrutiny- nor have siblings been found to be a 'suspect class'.

_Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty._


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



How do you come up with that tripe?

Is this another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument that you are famous for?

Obergfell made same sex marriage, not gay marriage legal you bigot.

Learn about freedom. Freedom for ALL.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nor did it mention intermediate scrutiny either, which is used to determine gender equity questions, which is a silly argument because gay is not a gender nor orientation because marriage never precluded orientation from the license. 

You realize Loving was a 14th amendment case decided by strict scrutiny test, Right?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes- you 'freedom fighters' want to deny marriage to gays and siblings


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Loving doesn't mention 'strict scrutiny'- and mentions 'scrutiny' only once.

_At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective,_

And then Loving goes on to say:

_*These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. T*he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State._

_



_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other. 

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Really- you are rather amusing as you  just pull crap out of your ass, fling it about and call it an argument.

I know you hate it when I cite actual judges- and court cases- but here it goes again:

Judge Crabb again:

_The Supreme Court has not explained how to distinguish a “suspect” classification
from a “quasi-suspect” classification, but sexual orientation is most similar to sex among the
different classifications that receive heightened protection, Doe, 119 F.3d at 593 n. 27.
Because sex discrimination receives intermediate scrutiny and the difference between
intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny is not dispositive in this case, I will assume that
intermediate scrutiny applies, which means that defendants must show that Wisconsin’s laws
banning marriage between same-sex couples must be “substantially related” to the
achievement of an “important governmental objective,” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 524, to survive
scrutiny under the equal protection clause._

Of course Obergefell doesn't mention strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny at all.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It all fits 

You want the legal requirement lowered from strict to intermediate, maybe lower?

Go ahead, go to court and try to Marry your own family member. Tell us how that goes. You fail and the reason will be that I will continue my search for the States compelling interest to deny you and your family marriage partner from getting a license.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times. 

You blind? Masturbation will do that


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....



 I would like to raise a complaint here!  I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men!  Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....
> ...



It is discrimination to allow someone to do something?  Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage. 

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate. 

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal?  Was it because of gender?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Back atcha?  What the hell is that supposed to mean?  

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry.  Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry.  Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is  both, which by its very basis means neither. 

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Marriage law is written to accommodate two consenting adult persons not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

There is no 'discrimination' against women – or men, for that matter – when the states follow the Constitution by allowing same-sex couples access to marriage contracts they're eligible to participate in.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law motivated solely by an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015))


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Except that the application of the arbitrary notion that the two not be too closely related, for no apparent sound legal reason, violates due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

Other than that, I'm cool with the rest since Claytons post would invoke the strict scrutiny test, thus requiring the State to prove ITS compelling interest in denying same sex siblings from partnering in a legal entity that doesn't require sex for membership.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender.  When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender.  What's difficult to understand about that argument?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




See Claytons post. 

Do you understand that simply because you have a right, not using it is not discrimination, right?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The law isn't determining who is in the relationship.  What is a woman prevented from doing in your example, joining that particular relationship?  

I fully understand that people are denied the ability to do things in many varied instances.  So?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



When all have equal, it's not gender its desire.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Again, what are you talking about?  Prior to various court decisions and legislation in the past 12 or so years, a man could not marry a man but a woman could.  The only thing preventing a man from marrying a man was his gender.  He did not have a right to marry a man that he did not use.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Assuming that your contention that preventing immediate family from marrying is arbitrary and without sound legal reason is correct, then sure.  That's a big assumption, though.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Did a woman have equal access to marrying a man prior to the legalization of same sex marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Are you unaware you won that argument?

We've moved on, argue all you want. That's not the issue. 

The argument is, the compelling state interest that the state has in denying same sex siblings. 

You deflect away from that as often as you like, that's how you roll. 

Wisconsin and several other states seems to think its procreation, yet the burdon of proof is arbitrarily applied. And still more curious is that they don't apply this same standard on partnering in an LLC?

Neither partnership required sex, yet only opposite gender cousins must prove infertility to enter one of these?

That is as discriminatory as it gets.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Demonstatrate how it's not arbitrary without sex being a requirement. 

LLC partnerships are not so restricted. No fertility test required and any sibling can partner in them.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I beg your pardon???????

Now  THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......



No... what is "imaginative" is that two men fucking each other in the anus constitutes marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......
> ...



What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......
> ...


So.....let's be clear here.  When you think of SSM, your mind immediately defaults to anal sex.   What does your mind immediately default to when you think of DSM?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......
> ...



They're not anything if not imaginative. 

Somehow they want to discriminate against anyone with a family member because of possible procreation, but in the same breath, say procreation isn't a requirement to marry?

Such hypocrisy. 

Yet ask them to explain why?

Deflect and deflect

They can't handle the exact same arguments they developed as their own marketing scheme.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal. 

Houston, we have a problem.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Show us which state requires (or has required) proof of procreation to get a legal marriage license.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Whaaaaaaaa?   Seems to me that somebody has anal sex on the brain.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You won that war idiot. 

Show us a state that requires sex as a requirement to marry. 

That would be refreshing.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.



I'm actually FOR gays getting married...  I think that sanctified union with a member of the opposite sex might be good for them. Perhaps it might steer them away from their sexual impulses to engage in homosexual behaviors? 

Oh... you were talking about GAY marriage which isn't REAL marriage, weren't you? ...My bad!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Must be you then. You made the implication, I just followed up.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I did?   I brought anal sex up?  You might want to check again.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Is that the sound you make when entered?  TMI


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You didn't ignore the post, did you?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.
> ...



And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And, unless you can name a compelling state Intetest, so will the marriage of two brothers. 

How proud you must be.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



DSM? Well, I think of YOU, of course! 

...Oh wait, I bet you weren't talking about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.



Congratulations.  It's still not a real marriage.... never will be.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Actually, yes, I was unaware.  Your posts are sometimes fairly confusing.  

Let's try this again : If Wisconsin allows infertile cousins to marry but not fertile cousins, that indicates that procreation is the major factor in the decision to prevent cousins from marrying, yes?  If Wisconsin does NOT allow infertile siblings to marry that seems to indicate that procreation is not the major factor in the decision to prevent siblings from marrying.

A marriage is not an LLC.  It is a form of contract with some unique attributes.  To compare it with a type of company as though they are exactly the same is disingenuous at best.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



WTF are you talking about?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.
> ...



I'm sure she's devastated that her marriage is not a real Boss marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.



LOL!  So... ROFL!  So ... huh... if the SUPREME LEGISLATURE decided that '_being_ The Obligatory Weird Aunt is all that is necessary to license you as a brain surgeon... you're claiming that this would qualify you to cut into a human skull and operate upon a human brain?




			
				SeeBytch said:
			
		

> "I'm A REAL BRAIN SURGEON!  _*SEE MY LICENSE!"*_




ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

These people are ABSOLUTELY HELPLESS!

Suffice it to say: Marriage, is _the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.
> ...



It's so odd that you put a comma after marriage there!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



What's weird about a pause?  Now, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations, _allow._


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Not just Boss, it's society in general. In every conversation here about this subject, the term "marriage" has to be accompanied by an adjective to distinguish a difference. If there is a difference then it isn't the same. We can fantasize and pretend otherwise, but we all know that gay marriage is not real marriage.

A piece of paper from the state doesn't make it any more real. My state can give me a piece of paper that says I am a unicorn, it does not make me a unicorn.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Then wny are you calling me a racist- when you opposed mix race couples having the freedom to marry each other.
Me:
You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
*You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?*

Pops_:No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times. _

So to recap- you oppose the legal right for gay couples marrying, mixed race couples marrying, siblings marrying and mothers marrying their sons.

I support the legal right for gay couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

So of course you call me a bigot and a racist.

Because I don't opposed mixed race marriages like you do. 

What a bigot you are.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No one here other than yourself is proposing marrying any famly members.

You are the one saying you now have a right to marry your sibling- IF you wanted to.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....
> ...



I would like to raise a complaint on the severe abuse of logic Boss just made.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Says you- quoting you- citing you.

Because you ignore or dismiss any opinions that are contrary to your own.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Run through those unique attributes, will you. 

They are both partnerships that are financially mutual beneficial to the partnership. 

Be so kind. But remember, the courts determined traditional values can't be the reasoning. 

Proceed


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



When the discussion was about 'mixed race' marriages it wasn't because 'mixed race marriages' were different- it was because there were bigots who wanted to deny mixed race couples marriage.

When bigots like Boss talk about 'gay marriage' it is because he wants to deny gays marriage.

There is only marriage- and couples- whether straight or gay- white or black or mixed race- get married.

And the bigots gnash their gnarly teeth in dismay.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I love your Says You argument. 

Crying?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Another sterling example of Pops just pulling crap out of his ass.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......
> ...



See, here is part of the problem.

Boss goes around fantasizing how married people have sex. 

If he would stop fantasizing about everyone else's sex lives- and focus on his own- he would be happier.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Him saying it in no way alters the potential validity of 'it'.

You claiming that him saying it, somehow undermines the validity of 'it', is logically invalid... Specifically, it is a variant of the appeal to misleading authority, blending nicely with the appeal to ignorance, wherein you claim that the speaker is unqualified to state 'it', and that a qualified individual would refute 'it'; sadly, you've offered no argument which presents a basis sustaining either implication.  

Thus your would-be argument is as pitiful as it is absurd.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.
> ...



It is to us and our kids...which is all that matters. Bigots certainly don't. Y'all are relegated to the dust bins of history.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No idiot, the law on SSM had been determined. I am arguing based on that suggesfull argument. 

YOU want to take credit for the win, but deny that argument to others?

You understand what a bigot is, right?

You think YOU OWN rights, THEY DONT get to share those rights. 

Had same sex marriage been legalized prior to interracial, you would be arguing against it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Once again- you call me a bigot- because I believe in the right of gay couples and mixed race couples to marry- and you do not.

Me:
You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
*You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?*

Pops_:No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times. _

So to recap- you oppose the legal right for gay couples marrying, mixed race couples marrying, siblings marrying and mothers marrying their sons.

I support the legal right for gay couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

So of course you call me a bigot and a racist.

Because I don't opposed mixed race marriages like you do.

What a bigot you are.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Here, let me help...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Once again- you call me a bigot- because I believe in the right of gay couples and mixed race couples to marry- and you do not.



ROFLMNAO!

So you believe in the right of White Swans and Gopher Turtles to fly free?

Associating men who marry women of a different skin color to sexual deviants demanding to do something for which they are thoroughly unsuited, is as pitiful as it is absurd.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Marriage creates a family unit.  An LLC does not.  Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not.  A marriage is not a company, an LLC is.  Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc..  Joining an LLC does not.

And that's about all the reply to your trolling I'm up for atm.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Would you prefer the word unusual?  Your use of commas is well outside the norm.  Just felt like pointing that out.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Another sterling example of Syriously crying.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



They both create partnerships. State the compelling state interest that the state has in establishing family units. There is one, but you deny it as a sound legal reason. And you realize the Government is NOT compelled to give tax benefits. They can end at any time the government wants, and ending those would be constitutional.

Power of attorney can be established by anyone, married or not, so yet another fail. 

Yes I know one created a corporation (duh) but you fail to explain why marriage is the ONLY legal partnership that limits the number and familial status of its members. Instead you rely on traditional values? How hypocritical of you 

It seems you are relying solely on tradition.

How'd that work for SSM opponents last time dummy?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Marriage creates a family unit.  An LLC does not.



Marriage is the Joining of a Man and a Woman.    Therefore Marriage creates a Family.  

A male joining with another male or a female joining with another female, does not.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't think an LLC is a corporation, although it can be taxed like one.  

You are the one comparing a marriage to an LLC.  Feel free to point out how the differences between them are not actually differences.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage creates a family unit.  An LLC does not.
> ...



If spouses are legally considered family then a same sex marriage does, in fact, create a family.  I was not discussing person opinions on what counts as marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If spouses are legally considered family then a same sex marriage does...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If spouses are legally considered family then a same sex marriage does...
> ...



Once again, wasn't discussing personal opinions on marriage but the similarities or differences between certain legal partnerships.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It creates a partnership ( I indeed mis state corp for company )

But your deflection is noted. 

I asked you to name the legal reason siblings can form an LLC and not a Marriage?

You don't have a Compelling reason, don't worry. If it's not a partnership that allows the state a way to insure clean bloodlines, it has no clear reason to exist. 

Oh, as far as tax breaks go, the fair tax would eliminate those anyway.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Sure you were. If not you would have answered my previous question instead of deflecting.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  That is a Natural FACT.  And this without regard to your contrary opinion.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 17, 2015)

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, is this thread still on its feet?

Who gives a rat's ass about sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals)?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Men and Women combining is the only way to create bloodlines. FACT


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It is not, however, the only way families are made.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Sure, singles can also be families with their children. 

Live in's can also be families. 

Anything else we can help with while you deflect?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Stating a fact is not deflection. You seem to think procreation = parenting. It does not as millions of families could tell you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Procreation proceeds parenting. Continue with your dumbfuckery

Second straight post I STATED FACT


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> It is not, however, the only way families are made.



It_ literally_ IS...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Stating a fact is not deflection.



Sexual Deviants playing house, does not a family make.  It's a perversion of 'family'.



Seawytch said:


> You seem to think procreation = parenting.


  That's because that is what parenting IS.  It's the fundamental element of parenting.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



How many times are you going to ask the same question, particularly when it has been answered multiple times?

You've been given reasons.  You don't think they are compelling.  Got it!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > It is not, however, the only way families are made.
> ...



Ah, so when a couple adopt a child, that is not a family?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



'Deflection' meaning not responding how Pops approves of.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You seem to have trouble with the word deflect.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well the homophobes really don't much care for children that need adoption.

Not surprised that they don't think that a couple adopting a child is a family.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Pops: No one can provide a compelling reason!
Everyone: here are reasons A, B and C
Pops: I deem none of those as compelling reasons!
Why won't anyone provide a compelling reason!

Pops will never find any reason compelling enough for him to accept that gays and mixed race couples have the freedom to legally marry now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Adoption is typically the consequence of the absence of sound fundamentals being present in the individual.

Adoption in NO WAY alters procreation being the FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF MARRIAGE.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Whoaaaaaaaa!


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Marriage creates a family unit.  An LLC does not.  Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not.  A marriage is not a company, an LLC is.  Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc..  Joining an LLC does not.



Yes and husbands put their penis in their wive's vagina not their sex partner's asshole. Penises in vaginas lead to procreation of family members, penises in assholes lead to STDs. The union of male and female genders is matrimony, the union of same genders is a deviant sex act. 

Yes... as absolutely amazing as it may seem to you... LOTS of things are different than other things.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage creates a family unit.  An LLC does not.  Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not.  A marriage is not a company, an LLC is.  Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc..  Joining an LLC does not.
> ...



Wait, did you just claim that husbands and wives never have anal sex?  

Unless you are claiming that heterosexual sex is matrimony, your comparison is a failure.

If you want to tell someone that things are different than other things, maybe you should be replying to Pops, who wanted to compare marriage to an LLC.  Or take a look in the mirror and realize that marriage and sex are different things.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



No one with sound fundamentals would adopt a needy child!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No one with sound fundamentals would need to adopt their child.  

Now how can we KNOW that?

Because an individual operating upon sound fundamentals isn't engaging in sexual intercourse, unless and until they're prepared to raise the child that such is specifically designed to conceive.

But hey!  In fairness to you, as a member of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, there is NO WAY you could have known _THAT!_


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The word "Union" doesn't have anything to do with sex when it's union of genders. When both are the same gender, the word can only mean something sexual. The genders are the same so there is nothing to unify. Marriage is the union of male and female genders, it has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. The only "union" of two same-sex persons is if they unify in engagement of sexual behavior. 

I don't need to tell anyone that things are different than other things, most people know this intuitively when the reach about 2 months old. You're just a little slow.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I wonder if you ever have problems using so many personal definitions of words which are not the same as the dictionary or common usage.   

You didn't respond to my question about whether you were claiming that husbands and wives never have anal sex.

You might worry about whether you are a little slow, considering this little side conversation came about because Pops was comparing marriage and LLCs and I merely pointed out various differences at his request.  

Wait, is my complaining about you using a personal definition of union nit-picking?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I see.  In your world, no one is infertile, parents never die leaving children behind, nothing like that?  

You are fun.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage creates a family unit.  An LLC does not.  Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not.  A marriage is not a company, an LLC is.  Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc..  Joining an LLC does not.
> ...


Um...are you the sex police?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I see.



No... you don't see. But that's only because the truth rests in objective reasoning and you're incapable of seeing anything beyond your own subjective needs.

We're not discussing infertile people.  We're discussing the idiocy wherein two people of the same gender claim to be a 'family' as a result of their playing house.  They're not 'infertile'... they're people of the same gender.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Are you saying that your various statements regarding civil unions, if talking about same gender couples, were talking about sex?  Or does the definition of union change when it is used in civil unions?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I see.
> ...



Actually we were discussing your statements that adoption is the consequence of a lack of sound fundamentals and that no one with sound fundamentals would need to adopt.  I can see why you would want to change the subject, though.  Those were some amazingly silly statements.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage creates a family unit.  An LLC does not.  Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not.  A marriage is not a company, an LLC is.  Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc..  Joining an LLC does not.
> ...



Why is Boss so obsessed with sex?

Here Montrovant was talking about marriage- and all Boss wants to talk about how he is once again fantasizing how married people have sex.

More deflection from the homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And Boss also believes that penis' going into vagina's does not lead to STD's.

And apparently any time a man and a woman have sex- they are married.

How amazingly bizarre.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Because none would meet the strict scrutiny test your side established. 


Try again, this time try thinking


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I have trouble deflecting true. I hit problems head on.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Not me, I'm not the problem for you. 

The strict scrutiny test is though. 

Yet another fail.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



If the child is not produced, it can't be adopted. 

More truth


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Oct 17, 2015)

Valerie said:


> _BIGOT_. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices



If one's opinions and prejudices are rooted in fact, it matters not that you call them bigoted against your own nonsensical opinions and prejudices.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LOL- you are like a greased pig- you slip away from honesty and facts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Sterling example of Pops being a greased pig.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I stated a fact.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



"Rain is wet". I also stated an irrelevant fact. Whoooppieee!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Unless you have a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their right to marry, you are irrelevant. 

Funny, think just how irrelevant gays are in the whole scheme of things. 

Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Don't have one, don't care. Siblings marrying, if you believe they have that right, don't matter to me a whit. If you believe they have the right to marry, they had it before I was granted the right.

File your case...otherwise you're just bloviating.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, it's all about context, that thing you have a problem with. In a "civil union" two civil entities are united. It has nothing to do with gender, marriage or sex.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yes.. I'm the sex police... Go fuck yourself!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.

Either marriage is a civil right, constitutionally protected or not.

You folks should make up your minds or your just bloviating to hide your bigotry. 

Honestly, if same sex marriage was ruled legal before loving, you'd be on the side of those wanting the races separated.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Like he said- file your case if you believe you now have the right to marry your sibling.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Boss demonstrating his command of the English language- and that he wants to be able to regulate how every American can have sex.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Whether we provide a compelling state interest- or you believe there is no compelling state interest- is irrelevant. 

What matters is what the States believe- and the courts believe- and 12 years after the Massachusetts case still no siblings marrying each other in Massachusetts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You stated an irrelevant fact to deflect from the post you were responding to.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ah, so I should know what your personal definitions of words are based on context?  

When you say the word union can only mean something sexual when it is about two people of the same gender, I think it's understandable I would question your previous uses of the word.  Why would you expect me to know how you are defining the word in any particular situation when you apparently use your own, different from the dictionary or common use definition?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I oppose sibling marriage. 

You make no sense. 

And He, is a she.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Nope. Creation of life is the most relevant subject there is. 

Yet another fact


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



But you say you could marry your sibling now- and as you said- marriage is not about sex- so go ahead and file your case as a test case- to test the law.

No one else has- not a single person in Massachusetts in 12 years- go stand up for your right to marry your sibling.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Boss is rather hard to pin down right?

Especially with his circular logic that all revolves around Boss citing himself, quoting himself and wanting to impose his own 'morality' on everyone else.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I didn't use a different definition. The word has the same definition but can vary in meaning depending on context.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 18, 2015)

With all the _*far*_ more important stuff going on in the world, who gives a rat's ass about sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals)?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I could? I'm already married and I oppose the thought. 

R U Retarted?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well if you can show me a dictionary definition of union in which the definition is different when it is used to describe same sex or opposite sex couples, I'd appreciate it.  In fact, if you can show that definition from anywhere other than yourself, I'd appreciate it.  I have never heard the word defined that way before and it certainly isn't defined like that in any dictionary definition I've ever seen.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I didn't say the definition was different. I said the definition is the same. Are you having trouble reading today?


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional? 

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You said this : 


Boss said:


> The word "Union" doesn't have anything to do with sex when it's union of genders. When both are the same gender, the word can only mean something sexual.



According to that quote, the word union has a different definition when used to describe an opposite gender couple than when used to describe a same gender couple.  I have never seen or heard union defined to mean different things depending on the gender of the subjects.  I am asking if you can show anywhere other than your own words where the word changes definition in that way.

If the definition of union is the same with regards to same sex couples and opposite sex couples than your quote above makes no sense.  If it is not the same I would like to see where you get the idea the definition changes depending on the gender of the participants in the union.

Perhaps you are having trouble remembering your own words again.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?
> 
> As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.



You are still creating your own definition for union.  Show me an example of the word being defined as only having to do with sex when same sex couples are the subjects and not having to do with sex when opposite sex couples are the subjects and I'll be surprised, but will accept it and move on.  I am confident that the only place you can find the word defined in such a way is your own mind (or possibly the opinions of some individual like-minded people).  

You can talk about context all you want, but the only difference between the two examples was the gender of the participants.  There was no contextual reason that union would not have to do with sex for opposite sex couples but can only be about sex for same sex couples.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Also curious is, since many states allow first cousins to marry if they are either past the age of fertility, or if they can prove infertility.....

Does this not grant greater access to this Constitutionally protected civil right to same sex couples?

I don't know of another right that the majority of participants have to prove qualification over the minority. 

Another paradox


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?
> 
> As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.



Let me give you an example.  An opposite gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union.  A same gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union.  Does the word union only mean sex in the second example but is not related to sex in the first?  Based on your earlier post, that is certainly what you appeared to say.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> With all the _*far*_ more important stuff going on in the world, who gives a rat's ass about sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals)?



I know, Right?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Also curious is, since many states allow first cousins to marry if they are either past the age of fertility, or if they can prove infertility.....
> 
> Does this not grant greater access to this Constitutionally protected civil right to same sex couples?
> 
> ...



Same gender couples prove qualifications based on their gender.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Also curious is, since many states allow first cousins to marry if they are either past the age of fertility, or if they can prove infertility.....
> ...



Oh, I see, and the medical test that same sex must submit to is.......

Yes, if the opposite sex couple that wishes to marry have to have a medical proceedure to qualify, then so should the same sex couple. But then you have that due process mess, don't you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start. 

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?
> ...



They don't believe we fall in love.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



*sigh*  ...Do you honestly not comprehend the difference between "definition" and "meaning"? 

The definition of "union" is "to join together" ...that's the definition.  The MEANING depends on what context the word is being used in. 

*union* ‎(_plural_*unions*)

(countable) The act of uniting or joining two or more things into one.
(uncountable) The state of being united or joined.
(countable) That which is united, or made one; something formed by a combination or coalition of parts or members; a confederation; a consolidated body; a league.
(countable) A trade union; a workers' union.
(countable) A joint or other connection uniting parts of machinery, such as pipes.
(countable, set theory) The set containing all of the elements of two or more sets.
(countable) The act or state of marriage.
(uncountable, archaic, euphemistic) Sexual intercourse.
(countable, computing) A data structure that can store any of various items, but only one at a time.
(countable, now rare, archaic) A large, high-quality pearl.
When we are talking in context of matrimony and marital relationships, what is meant by a union? Well, traditionally, the "union of man and woman" was just that, the union of two genders as one in holy matrimony.  Same genders can't be united because they are already united as genders, they are the same. So what is the context of union when it comes to same sex partners? It can't be anything other than intimate relations. Hence, it is the "joining together" (definition of union) of homosexual partners.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sorry but the human emotion of love is not dependent upon marriage.  If it were, I'd be married to my mom, my daughters, my grandkids, the Alabama Crimson Tide, a nice t-bone steak and Kate Upton's titties.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I beleive you can.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

*Okay, okay..... *





*I will happily withdraw all my objections to gay marriage if you hypocrites will simply stand up for my fundamental constitutional right to marry these big dirty milkers! *


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You don't know the difference between romantic and platonic love? You and Pops need to talk.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Love is not a requirememt of marriage. 

If you want it to be, then the State has a right to create that test. 

Guess what, you'd lose.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected. 

The ends justified the means. 

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?
> 
> As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.



As we can see from Boss's demonstration- he has quite a thing about shoving things up asses.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?
> ...



If you continue your flirting, no one will take you seriously.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You have verified what we all have suspected.

That you are a troll who just wants to discriminate against homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Poor Pops- this is what he thinks is flirting- obviously he doesn't get out much.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Not with gays obviously


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Civil rights, constitutionally protected are afforded to all.

You nimrods created the problem with no way of denying the ability of ALL to Marry.

Many genetically defective children in the future will have you to thank.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Okay, okay..... *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have the right to marry her- and she has the right to marry you- now all you need is her consent


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



As you keep saying- quoting you= citing you.

With no evidence to support your claims.

12 years of legal marriage in Massachusetts- and still no siblings marrying.

And gay couples are still getting married- and you nimrods are still but hurt about it.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.



Well, this is one of the stupidest things *I've *ever read.

I'm curious as to, besides the right to marry and not be fired for who they are, what "special rights" the gay community just won't stop until they get. Yanno, besides the power to rape whomever they please, legally. You've already covered *that *slippery slope.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Clean bloodlines? Wow, you really do sound like the racist of yesteryear. 

Pops, if sibling marriages ever come to pass, I'll happily concede that you were right all along and the slippery slope exists. 

I'm 100% positive that you will never get that concession.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



12 years HUH, wow your prospective of how long the future is is bizarre. But when you got no nut in the game.....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Marriage IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right you simpleton. It's your argument that almost insures it.

Congratulations

You don't care if it happens or not. You've made that incredibly clear.

Name one other constitutionally protected civil right that excluded nearly everyone from full participation?

Your arguments seem to have been a fraud from the beginning.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Only you assume such racism. 

You could care less about genetically deformed children as long as you get to lick pussy.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No.  When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.  You can argue that marriage must be between a man and woman by definition; I disagree but accept the argument.  There is no definition of union whereby when relating to same sex couples it must be about sex while when relating to opposite sex couples, *in the same context*, it is about something other than sex.

Of course words can have different meanings and use different definitions depending on context.  The problem is that you have decided that union has a different meaning for same sex couples and opposite sex couples in the same context.

A better analogy would be if you decided that when discussing Hispanics, a union is a grouping of workers, but when discussing Asians, a union is sex.

There is nothing in the definition of union which requires that it be about opposite sex couples when talking about romantic unions.  You have made that up.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Okay, okay..... *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have every right to marry Kate Upton.  Of course, neither of you can be married to someone else at the time, and you both must consent, but your right to marry her should you both wish it and be single is certainly unchanged by Obergefell.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Marriage excluded nearly everyone from full participation?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yes, thanks. No one could marry a family member. Now go back to correcting grammar. It's what you do best.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



12 years- and none of your predictions- citing you- quoting you- have come true.

LOL......


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The inflicted children thank you in advance asshole


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You\r imaginary afflicted children?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You dont' give a damn about any children- you just want to lick the assholes of your homophobe overlords.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Shows your callous disregard for human life. 

But, again, gays have no skin in the game, so fuck the future, Right?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Quit using this forum to post your nasty fantasies, you perverted twat


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pops has such a convoluted attempt an argument.

He first claims that procreation is no longer relevant- but then also claims that there will be a quantifiable increase in genetic disorders.

But if there is a real threat of genetic disorders it would provide a rational for States to disqualify couples who can procreate from marrying.

States have done exactly that in the past and can still do so.


----------



## playtime (Oct 18, 2015)

who cares?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pops has such a convoluted attempt an argument.
> 
> He first claims that procreation is no longer relevant- but then also claims that there will be a quantifiable increase in genetic disorders.
> 
> ...



Ends justifying the means again, huh Perv?

States are not allowed to restrict constitutionally protected civil rights. 

You fought your ass off for that, now you want others to fix your fuck up?

Of course, to claim a State can restrict a constitutionally protected civil right, then:

A: you beleive Virginia had the right to restrict interracial marriage

B. It's not actually a constitutionally protected civil right to begin with.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Every post you make shows your contempt for human life.

But then again you are just a bigot with no skin in the game- you just post to promote your hatred


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pops has such a convoluted attempt an argument.
> ...


Why do you keep lying about that?

States can regulate all sorts of rights- including marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You upset that someone is pointing out your incestuous fantasies?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Ah, so full participation means completely unregulated?  If that's so, I can certainly name other rights which exclude everyone from full participation.  Speech, gun ownership, religious practice, all are regulated.  

Getting butthurt on behalf of Boss now?  :LOL:


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



He is getting more and more frantic in his defense of incestuous marriage- oh wait- in his attack on incestuous marriage- oh wait- in his attack on Americans who are gay marrying.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Confusing rights with civil rights are we?

Why are you arguing EXACTLY in the same manner that Virginia used Vs. Loving. 

Tell me the other civil rights you would deny blacks?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Incest is a crime

I oppose family marriage

It appears that those fighting to create a civil right to marry wish to deny that right to others without due process, a clear violation of the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment since sex is not a requirement in marriage. 

Care to explain why you created this paradox?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So the state gets to choose which Gods are worshiped? The state can determine which words can be used? Can they also tell you that you must speak? 

One can't yell fire in a crowded theater - but only when they yell it to inflict terror, if there is a fire, it's not restricted. 

So?  Please tell me the compelling state interest to deny entrance into a contracted partnership, by family members into a relationship that does not make sex a qualification


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Are you saying that ...



I'm saying what nature said when it designed the human species: 

*MARRIAGE is: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*​


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 18, 2015)

This could almost have been said by Pops on this message board...instead of 50 years ago...

_It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent._~ R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 18, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> This could almost have been said by Pops on this message board...instead of 50 years ago...
> 
> _It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent._~ R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general



You understand the only non arbitrary requirements are consent, a signed document and payment of a fee, right?

Your heads stuck in tradition, which when you think about it is funny as hell.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.
> ...



Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo. 

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.



Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.
> ...



Matrimony is the state of being married.  Marriage is the joining in marriage?  Thanks for that.  

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument.  Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that.  I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 18, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




LOL- since you are the one who believes that mixed race couples and gay couples should not be allowed to legally married- you have already told us who you would deny civil rights to.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony.  Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it. 

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > This could almost have been said by Pops on this message board...instead of 50 years ago...
> ...



Nope. We once restricted marriage based on race. That was wrong and we changed it. We also once restricted marriage based on gender. That was wrong and we changed it. 

Marriage still remains non familial consenting adults. That didn't change when we allowed races to mix and it's not going to happen now that genders can marry each other. Marriage remains non familial consenting adult couples. 

R. D. McIlwaine III thought EXACTLY as you do Pops. How'd that turn out for him?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I will have been married to my partner of 20 years for seven years on Halloween. We have not once been treated differently by society since we got married. We're treated exactly like other married couples by society. 

You silly, silly, silly bigot. Gay people in a neighborhood improves your property value. Everyone who isn't a bigot knows that. 

*Your Gay Neighbors Really Are Raising Your Real Estate Values*


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You really should have stopped with "you must at least be okay with it", bigot. You don't have to be a woman to think that women derserve equal rights. You don't have to be black to think that blacks deserve equal rights. And no, you don't have to be gay to think that gays deserve equal rights. 

I will say, however, that they have found the most virulently anti gay bigots to be self loathing gays a large part of the time.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, that would be you


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



It remains, for no particular reason, non familial. 

Same argument made by Virginia 

Bigot.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



We have already been over this- 

I support the right of gay couples to legally marry.
I support the right of mixed race couples to legally marry.

You oppose the right of gay couples to legally marry.
You oppose the right of mixed race couples to legally marry.

Because you are of course- a bigot- who wants to deny Americans their rights.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



Boss doesn't know any gay people other than his imaginary gay friends.

What kind of a bigot is Boss?

Boss thinks that straight people do not marry because of sex- but that homosexuals marry only because of sex. 

Because Boss doesn't think of homosexuals as people- he thinks of them as something other than people.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have never actually been with a woman- have you?

And you certainly have never been married.

As someone who has been married to my wife for over 20 years, I can say with great certainty that our 'romantic union' took place long before our wedding- and continues to this day. 

And since i have actual real homosexual friends who actually are married- from all appearances their marriage is based upon the same things as my marriage is- mutual respect, love, admiration or as one Justice said:

_Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions_


----------



## bodecea (Oct 19, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No....unless you want to do something like human sacrifice.  Thank goodness for separation of church and state.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 19, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that ...
> ...


That's sex.  Not marriage.   Marriage is not natural....it is a human construct and as such has gone under multiple changes by multiple cultures over the millennium.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.
> ...


Well, I would imagine in some cases that is true.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




You are no different that those who called white people who supported civil rights in the 50s & 60s "N***** lovers."


----------



## bodecea (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...


Same here...we have been friends with our neighbors since we moved in back in 96.  They all know we are gay and we even had our legal wedding ceremony in the gazebo at our cul-de-sac park before Prop H8 kicked in.  You don't see to live in the real world if you think that the majority of people reject gay couples.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are funny.



Boss said:


> I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument.  However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations.  That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

I'm still waitin


Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



He appears to be claming that two people of the same gender are incapable of having the same level of love, trust and commitment as a man and woman, because he says so.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It remains, for the same reasons, non familial. 

When are you filing your challenge?


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again, has nothing to do with the *definition*. 

The definition of "union" is "to join together" as well as a couple of alternative definitions, like a type of pearl. The "meaning" of the word can vary depending on context. Definition and meaning are two different things. You seem to not be able to comprehend that. 

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. (They can be gay or straight) Same sex partners can't marry the same reason they can't procreate. It takes a male and female... a union. They can pretend. We can all pretend. In  fact, we can redefine dogs and cats to mean "children" and gay couples can pretend to have all "children" they please. Does that make it the same? 

Like I've said, if you want to argue same sex couples deserve tax breaks and benefit of contract in personal property matters, I have no problem with that. If you want to call their relationship a "civil union" ...again, not a problem. But marriage is the union of a male and female, and as such, there has been NO DISCRIMINATION.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *Okay, okay..... *
> ...



Oh you misunderstood... I don't care about marrying Kate. She is way too young for me. We probably have nothing in common and it would be a terrible relationship. I just want to marry her titties. I promise to forsake all other titties and to love, honor and cherish them until death do us part. 

And hey, Einstein, I didn't need to you point out that we can't be married to someone else... I'd like for you to explain *why* but you can't explain it using your morality anymore, it has to be a _compelling state interest_. And the same goes for consent and other malleable terms we change all the time in law. Your morality doesn't apply when we're talking about my _fundamental_ constitutional rights. I'm entitled to those regardless of your moral standards.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you keep saying.

But that hasn't been entirely true in the United States for over 12 years.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So Boss so dehumanizes women- that he only wants to marry 'titties'?

Not surprising really eh?


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> I'm still waitin
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> ...



No, I am saying that marriage is the union of a male and female in matrimony. This involves more than love, trust and commitment. I love my mother... can't marry her. I trust my sister... can't marry her. I am committed to my cell phone provider... can't marry it. Now... I did not need marriage to fulfill my love, trust and commitment.. so marriage is obviously not required for those things. It's also not a "level" for those things. If so, no one would ever get a divorce. 

I am simply saying that a "marital union" between a man and woman is something completely different in context than a "marital union" between same sex couples. With a man and woman, marriage is the joining of two genders in matrimony. With same sex partners there is no union of genders because they are the same. Their "marital union" can only be one of sexual behavior. 

So we have "real" marriage, and we have "gay" marriage.... like real crab and imitation crab. The SCOTUS can rule they are the same thing but we all know the difference.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



How bizarre- Boss equates the physical facts of biology (the mixing of sperm and ovum) with marriage.

Apparently Boss thinks a male and female dog are capable of marriage- since they can procreate- but not a woman and a woman.

The bigotry runs deep with Boss.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> I'm still waitin
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> ...



Oh he goes beyond that- he is so terrified of gays that he predicts that gays will be trying to pass laws requiring him to have sex with him- from the OP

_One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough._


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person? 

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone. 

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waitin
> ...


Oh, I called him on that. He handwaved it away, then called me a faggot. He's a real top-notch debater.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.
> 
> Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).
> 
> Separate but equal is unconstitutional.



No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else.  You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked. 

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?  

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define. 

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



You didn't "call me" on anything, asshat. You slobbered all over the board with your sentimental tripe about love and happiness. Then worked yourself into a hate-filled froth because I was being honest with you about how society will continue to treat homosexuals. You see, we can't have civil dialogue anymore... no way. You've made up your mind that I am something I'm not, based on your closed-minded bigotry. Now you want to sit back and take little cheap shots at me from the peanut gallery. 

Excuse me, I need to go take a crap that I care about more than what you have to say.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.
> ...



Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business. 

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> You didn't "call me" on anything, asshat. You slobbered all over the board with your sentimental tripe about love and happiness. Then worked yourself into a hate-filled froth because I was being honest with you about how society will continue to treat homosexuals. You see, we can't have civil dialogue anymore... no way. You've made up your mind that I am something I'm not, based on your closed-minded bigotry. Now you want to sit back and take little cheap shots at me from the peanut gallery.
> 
> Excuse me, I need to go take a crap that I care about more than what you have to say.


MY closed-minded bigotry? From the guy who called me a faggot. Pardon my while I laugh my ass off at you.

"Sentimental tripe" in a thread about MARRIAGE.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



It only "counts" in such a manner by an angry minority. Their opinion on our marriages plus $3 gets 'em coffees at Starbucks.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?  

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it.



Now Boss is telling us that straight people don't engage in homosexual behavior because it is abnormal, not because they aren't attracted to their own gender.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Actually, I used to be a strong advocate of gay marriage, in the very beginning. My opinion was changed by my close friends who are gay couple, who had a wedding in 1986 in rural Alabama. I had assumed they supported gay marriage... being they were openly gay and had a wedding. Turns out, I was wrong. Just goes to show you that we don't all fit neatly in bigoted stereotypical boxes. 

They made me understand that "marriage" is not something any government has the power to determine, or at least, they shouldn't have that power. Have you never considered that a SCOTUS which can rule "gay marriage" is marriage, can also rule that marriage can only be between men and women? All it would have taken is one justice in Obergefell and "gay marriage" would be a thing of the past. 

As for calling my representatives in government, I do that all the time. I sent an email to Jeff Sessions this morning. My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage. I'm proud of that and would like to think I had something to do with it. Eventually, I think you're going to see many states do the same thing. It's time we join the 21st century and stop allowing government to define our personal relationships.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well, if you want to nit-pick......

You are using your own personal meaning of the word union.  There is no definition nor rule that requires union be sexual when discussing same sex couples compared to opposite sex couples, other than in your own mind.  You gave no context which would change the meaning of the word; the context was the same for opposite gender couples and same gender couples.  You simply decided that the word has a different meaning for same gender couples and apparently expect others to agree for....well, no particular reason.  You seem to be conflating union and marriage.

Since you seem to want to continue with the nit-picking, here, let me provide a definition of the word define : the definition of define .  Note the first definition 'to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)'.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Oh, and Boss ...
> 
> Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
> 
> According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.



Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage.



Would that be like the previous bill which did no such thing?


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and Boss ...
> ...


No, society is not "swayed by polls," society is _reflected _in polls. Only crackpots and the utterly delusional think a reputable, scientific poll is somehow meaningless because of "PC" or some other bullshit reason.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it.
> ...



I'm attracted to people of my own gender all the time. I don't even have a problem recognizing when a man is handsome or sexually attractive. I don't want to have homosexual relations with them... that's abnormal.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage.
> ...



Except that, it did.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and Boss ...
> ...



Polls can absolutely be manipulated to try and get the response you want.  However, the same poll 50 years ago would almost certainly have had far, far fewer positive responses towards homosexuality or same sex marriage.  Acceptance of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general has been trending upward for years.  Good PR?  Sure, that plays a big part.  That doesn't mean that attitudes haven't changed a great deal.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then?  You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> They made me understand that "marriage" is not something any government has the power to determine, or at least, they shouldn't have that power.



Civil marriage, on the other hand, is.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yeah.....we've been over that, it certainly did not.  Only through another one of your personal word meanings can it be said to be true.


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...


Very true, and I didn't mean to imply they didn't ... you do need to look at the methodology. That said, the trend is pretty clear and no amount of "we're gonna change this!" posturing by the dead-enders is going to reverse it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There are ways to effectively kill homosexual marriage. I made a thread about this as well. As I pointed out there, this entire "movement" is being pushed by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. If we remove the source of that perception the inequity issue vanishes because it's no longer relevant. 

In 20-30 years a future generation might look back on this period with amusement and curiosity. Back when people thought gays could marry and be treated equally to traditional married couples. They'll laugh at the silliness of it like we laugh at bell-bottom plaid pants. They may even have 'theme' parties where people come dressed as same-sex brides and grooms and play music from the time. It won't be a cultural thing anymore, we will have moved on. In short, this is a cultural fad. 

The only "trend" you're seeing is people wanting to be trendy. Our society has been bombarded by the idea that homosexuality is cool and you're not cool if you don't think so. So naturally, there is growing trend of people who jump on the bandwagon of something that is politically correct. It has nothing to do with their personal sentiments... take you for example, when I indicated you were gay, it took you no time at all to set the record straight... pardon the pun.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Wrong


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Human sacrifice? You do stretch logic

But then again you must


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> I'm still waitin
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> ...



Of course we will have to take your word for it since there is no "love test" which is strange. 

With racial civil rights we don't have to guess, we can actually test to verify

With gender civil rights, we can test to verify. 

Hell, there are people posting claiming to be heterosexual, we have to take their word for that also. 

Strange, isn't it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



Nope, you can be married to the opposite sex, yet still gay. I've yet to find the gay test and we rely on someone telling us what they are.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well we have been over it and it certainly did. Now, the state government does have to uphold the laws of the land, they can't avoid that and they can't write legislation to get around it. You're taking that to mean they are "recognizing" but they are only actually following the law, which they have to do. If they are not officially licensing or sanctioning marriage, they aren't recognizing it. That doesn't mean they don't recognize civil or contractual unions, even those from other states, even those which are called something else. That's the state government following federal law and the Constitution according to SCOTUS. For the state to recognize marriage they have to license marriages, which they would not be doing anymore.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yet the argument that family members be denied implies it does......

Curiouser and curiouser


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then?  You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.



I was the same as a lot of people. Pulled into an emotional question of a perceived inequity. I've always considered "marriage" to be one man and one woman, nothing else. I've never understood it to be a "fundamental right" and I still don't understand why a "fundamental right" has governmental licensing OR why it has to conform to your many rigid and moralistic viewpoints. If it is a human right that is fundamental, it doesn't require licensing or approval from moralist judgement. 

But in the beginning, I felt compassion towards my gay friends and thought this was about them being able to obtain something others had and they were being denied. I can't divulge the names of the gay couple who's wedding I attended in 1986. I can't do anything about it if you don't believe me... I probably wouldn't believe it myself if it hadn't happened to me, but they are who convinced me my position was wrong. 

What they made me realize is, "marriage" is not and cannot be defined by a piece of paper, or by any other standard you may wish to apply. It's sort of akin to "salvation" it's a personal thing. The government cannot make you married any more than it can save your soul. This is between you and your partner. A government that can tell you marriage has to include gays can tell you it has to include mailboxes or dead people. It can also swing the other way and tell you it requires missionary style intercourse approved by the Southern Baptist Convention. OR... and this is a new facet... The government _CAN_ tell you that marriage isn't allowable until your 40. When you allow government to decide, you surrender your freedom to government.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Actually studies show that people who, like you,  are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.


> I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?



You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That is the risk you take when you 'debate' a bigot.

A racist would assume you are a n*gger.
An anti-semite would assume you are a k*ke.
And Boss assumes you are 'a little faggot' 

That is what bigots do. 

That is what Boss does.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



Who's anti gay?

Ok, I guess we can simply claim you're anti straight?

What do studies say about that? You a closeted hetro?

God, you folks must be the funniest people alive.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ah, the south...always the last vestiges of bigotry again.

You are deluded. Nothing you are wishing for is going to come to pass. Roberts will not reverse the ruling and even he would have voted for Full Faith and Credit in a narrower ruling which STILL would have legalized my marriage in your backwards assed state.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> [
> I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.



Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 19, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm not trying to deny straight people any rights, Pops. I'm not even remotely anti straight. My parents and kids (and most of my best friends) are straight.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why are you anti-sex? Did you have an abusive childhood that left your irreparably harmed so you fear sex?


----------



## Kobie (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


If you honestly think future generations will trend back toward exclusionary policies regarding gays, and will trend away from acceptance of gays and gay marriage, you are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then?  You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.
> ...



And to that end- Boss wants Americans to condemn homosexuals.

Why exactly Boss feels like Americans should condemn homosexuals- because Boss has a problem with Americans having legal marriage- well I am sure no one can understand.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This seems to be another example of you using your own personal definitions or meanings for words.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that state recognition only occurs with licensing.  

Whatever the case, we've been over this before.  I doubt rehashing it will bring up anything new.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



All Boss does when he pontificates like this is demonstrate how ignorant he is.

What would have changed if one justice had voted differently?

The issue would still be left up to the States- and every State whose legislature and voters have made same gender marriage legal- would still continue to be legal. In addition, every state in which the State Supreme Court overturned State bans on same gender marriage(like Massachusetts) would still have same gender marriage.

And finally- California would continue to have same gender marriage. California's case was resolved prior to Obergefel.  Of course Boss and his homophobic buddies could try to pass the same Constitutional initiative again- but California now firmly supports the rights of American couples of the same gender to marry.

But- Boss could keep Alabama free to discriminate.

Just as if the Court had never overturned bans on mixed race marriages, Atlanta would have continued to discriminate against mixed race couples for another 25 years.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



How do you know. You can tell sexuality via a forum post?

Amazing


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



Yeah, they still wear Beatle haircuts


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No, my childhood was normal. 

Are you reaching out for help?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



As long as they might be helped financially by marriage, then you are indeed.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And I'm not trying to deny any gays any rights.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Only 3 states voted to allow same sex marriage, but I wonder if those three would have if they realized they were bagging the societal safety net?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then?  You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.
> ...



I actually disagree with the way the USSC treats marriage.  If they just considered marriage a fundamental right, that would be one thing, but they effectively have said that civil marriage is a fundamental right and that I don't agree with.  However, I realize civil marriage as a fundamental right is the reality in our country.

I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out before, but there are other examples of licensing a fundamental right, such as licensing of a gun.

Government sanctioned, legal civil marriage is not the same as personal or religious marriage.  One can exist independent of the other.  While the government (which in our case ostensibly means the people) may define civil marriage (as it must, if civil marriage is going to exist), the government does not define your personal or religious views on marriage.  You've pointed out the same sex wedding you attended many times.  That such a wedding happened well before same sex marriage was incorporated into civil marriage shows that the government does not define marriage for individuals.

You are free to consider same sex marriages something other than marriage.  That you cannot treat them differently than opposite sex marriages in a legal sense does not change what you personally feel about it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you. 

Yes, we saw how quickly Kobie corrected me when I assumed he was gay... he's very secure in his heterosexuality. I asked him if he had ever tried it and there wasn't a reply... I am assuming he hasn't tried it. 



> I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?



You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.[/QUOTE]

No, it is not what I am saying at all. A union can be all kinds of things, it depends on context. Men with the same genitals engaged in a sexual act is a union it's just not a marital union. My argument over marital concept is the issue, you can't unite two of the same thing as one, they are already one. 

Think about... if Reese's had 'married' chocolate with chocolate... we'd be very disappointed in the product... it's not much of a "marriage" ...it's just a chocolate cup. In order for the "marriage" to work, it has to be two different things... peanut butter and chocolate.  Same sex marriage is an oxymoron... it's like a chocolate chocolate cup.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out before, but there are other examples of licensing a fundamental right, such as licensing of a gun.



And what other fundamental right is there an example of? You used a plural, so I expect more than one example. With regard to guns, there is a compelling state interest to license and register firearms. Using strict scrutiny, there is still a public safety issue that involves other rights which trump the unfettered right to bear arms. 

This wasn't always the case, it had to be decided by SCOTUS and the same could happen for marriage in the future. 



> Government sanctioned, legal civil marriage is not the same as personal or religious marriage. One can exist independent of the other.



Why does this need to be the case? Why should "government marriage" have to exist at all? The right is talking about fair tax and getting rid of income taxes, the left is talking about eliminating the loopholes, so from a government perspective there won't be a tax issue anymore. Social Security is about bankrupt and will eventually have to be restructured... if we even decide to keep "spousal benefits" we can certainly alter the parameters to surviving civil union partners. We have been dealing with property rights and beneficiary issues for hundreds of years through private contracts, doesn't seem to be much of a problem to do that. So why is it, in 2015, we have to have government sanction our domestic relationships?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out before, but there are other examples of licensing a fundamental right, such as licensing of a gun.
> ...



If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage, more power to you.  I think it is an unrealistic goal, at least in our lifetimes.  I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't think it is practical.

With rights requiring licensing, I should have said licenses or permits.  There are times when public assembly can require a permit; I don't know if a license is ever required.  

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.  There is also common law marriage, which is usually an unlicensed marriage.  That is pretty conclusive proof that civil marriage can exist without licensing if that is an issue.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...



It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen. 



Montrovant said:


> Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.



What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold? 

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing. 

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.


----------



## Faun (Oct 19, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If you can get enough people to agree..



Another thing that I have a problem with is this.  Several examples have been given of different domestic arrangements becoming legitimized through marriage, now that the law has changed. In each instance, you guys chortle... well, if you can get enough people to agree.... and that's fine, but look at this issue of gay marriage. How many people support it who are not gay, will never have a gay marriage and don't even care to entertain the thought of having a homosexual relationship? As I've pointed out, this is what is driving the issue, not the homosexuals. They represent a small minority who wouldn't be able to get diddly-squat done by themselves. 

So we see by this issue, the question of "if you can get enough to agree" is not a big deal when it comes to some of these bizarre things because we're not talking about the small number of people who like to fuck their goats anymore, we're talking about the movement behind them. 

I happen to believe, if we venture down this path of government-sanctioned marriage, the very same "secure heterosexual" liberals who are pushing this agenda will be pushing the next one. If they can get political momentum from it, they will do it. If they can use it to bash Christians and conservative values, that's  what they will be all about. We just need the groundwork laid for it... a few heart-wrenching stories of people being discriminated against and voila... instant crusade!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...
> ...



By retain marriage I mean that every law in Alabama regarding marriage, from taxes to power of attorney to inheritance and anything in between, would remain.  The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license.  Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state.  Marriage would still be part of the same statutes it was before the bill.  Nothing would change except the manner one would enter into a state-authorized, state-recognized, legal civil marriage in Alabama.  It wouldn't end Alabama granting marriages to couples who fit the criteria; Alabama would not have stopped authorizing future civil marriages in the state and only had to deal with those from out of state.  

By retaining marriage I mean that people would still have been getting married in Alabama legally with the same rights and privileges they had before.  They just wouldn't need to acquire a license in order to do that.


----------



## Faun (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

Same-sex marriage in the U.S. couldn't be more real. It's as real as a marriage between a man and a woman. It's as legally binding and offers every tax advantage and every legal benefit bestowed upon a next of kin.


----------



## Faun (Oct 19, 2015)

Kobie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...


Boss often denies saying things he's said earlier. It's part of his dementia.


----------



## Faun (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?


Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again... What other choice does the State have? Of course the legislation they pass will adhere to federal laws and the Constitution. Why would they pass anything in defiance of that? How could they do it and get away with it? 

Because the State of Alabama is operating within the Constitution and federal law, does not mean they endorse or sanction gay marriage in an official capacity. They do not recognize it because there is nothing for them to recognize. They MUST recognize federal laws and the Constitution.   



> The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license.  Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state.



No, they would not authorize "marriages" of any kind. That's the point of eliminating the licenses. This eliminates state sanction of gay marriage. If you don't think it changes anything but paperwork and formalities.. good! Sounds like a winner of a plan to me... you're okay with it and I'm okay with it. Why are we arguing?


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?
> ...



Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view. 

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS.  I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?


----------



## Faun (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It means they would still recognize gay marriages as the legally binding union they are. Now legal in all 50 states, including Alabama should they pass that law.


----------



## Boss (Oct 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



They recognize whatever legally binding union they are required to. What other choice do you think they have?


----------



## Faun (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I don't believe they have a choice. You're the one claiming they do not have to recognize same-sex marriage since there is nothing they hold.

I'm pointing out the lunacy of that since the state will in fact be holding the marriage contracts.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You speak as though Alabama does not have any laws pertaining to marriage, as though it's all federal.  Instead, at least under the bill that was proposed and you have talked about previously, Alabama would still have the same marriage laws it does now had the bill passed, excepting that the manner of entering into a marriage in the state would have changed. 

It still would have been Alabama authorizing the same types of marriages it had before the bill.  In fact, I'm nearly certain you have had a portion of the bill quoted to you which specifically stated that the participants would be authorized by the state to enter into a marriage.  The point of eliminating the licenses seemed to be to avoid Kim Davis like situations where a state employee has a problem issuing a license they must issue as part of their job.  You are still promoting this idea that only activities which the state licenses are authorized or endorsed by the state, despite the variety of laws, privileges, and benefits afforded to married couples which would remain even without the licenses, despite the state recognizing unlicensed common law marriages.  

That is why this argument continues.  You continue to make these bizzare claims about licensing being the only way for states to sanction something, implying that the state will just follow federal law regarding marriage as though there are no state laws regarding marriage, and ignoring that the bill itself stated that no other marriage laws would be changed.  It seems like yet more of your personal definition or meaning of words; licensing is the only way by which a state can authorize an activity.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There are civil marriage contracts and any two people can apply for them. 

Under the proposed bill there would still have been civil marriage.  It would not have become civil unions, there was no rewording, no changing of the laws governing who can enter into civil marriage nor who gets what benefits or rights through civil marriage.

If you think a future bill will end the granting of civil marriage, that is different.  I have to wonder how the courts would deal with that if they are going to consider civil marriage a fundamental right.


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Hetero marriages occur all the time even though one spouse is sterile, thereby no children will be produced.  Are their marriages any less valid or sanctified because of that?

Should they be 'allowed' to call it a 'marriage' going by your definition of what one is?


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> So we have "real" marriage, and we have "gay" marriage.... like real crab and imitation crab. The SCOTUS can rule they are the same thing but we all know the difference.



So, please explain to the class, how Rush Limbaugh's 4th marriage (after vowing ''till death do us part' 3x before & never producing a single dittohead offspring)  is *more  'real'*  than any same sex MARRIAGE?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 20, 2015)

Even if Alabama does stop issuing marriage licenses, they STILL have to honor marriages performed elsewhere. They will STILL have give the goodies to the gheys. Poor backwards Alabama.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you.



Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Both. Both genders claimed they were prevented from marrying the person they love because of their gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



1. No, a sexuality claimed the discrimination. I'm part of that Male gender, a remarkable majority of us claimed no such discrimination 

2. You realize, you bolster my contention that same sex siblings have legitimate claim to being discriminated against


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why would anyone believe your inane claims? Especially since you are just parroting exactly what the Catholic League said 12 years ago in Massachusetts- which never came to pass.

Why would those states believe a bigot like you now- when they didn't believe the bigots then?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



When both races claim discrimination which race is being discriminated against?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Please quote the post that said that I proposed to end marriage. I contend it will die under its own weight. 

Marriage as a legal entity, that does not include a sexual relationship, love or nearly anything else that the government can't simply revoke, is a law destined to fail.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If you can get enough people to agree..
> ...



Yeah Boss keeps making this claim- quoting himself, citing himself.

And like always- he ignores the facts.

And the fact is that Obergefell was one of dozens- maybe hundreds of cases of gay couples filing lawsuit demanding that their constitutional right to marry be recognized.

The Supreme Court cases that gives Boss so much Butthurt was driven entirely by homosexuals. The DOMA case was driven by homosexuals.

The California case was driven by homosexuals.

Boss is lying again. Maybe even to himself- but he is lying.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Exactly dummy, that's why these fall under the strict scrutiny test. Race and sexuality are two vastly different things.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and Boss ...
> ...



A poll reflects how the attitudes of society are changing.

Just as society once considered mixed race marriages 'abnormal' and such couples were shunned by society- so to will some bigots shun homosexuals.

But attitudes change over time- and bigots like Boss are the ones that end up being shunned.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You've stalked all the participants and can tell who are married or not?

Hell, then you must have the winning lottery numbers!

Ladies and gentlemen, THE AMAZING SYRIOUSLY -GAY MENTALIST


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kobie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Wow- see I don't have sex with men because I am not sexually attracted to men- and I have sex with women because I am sexually attracted to women.

Boss doesn't have sex with men only because he thinks its wrong.

Seems to me that the person with a propensity to being homosexual is Boss.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



A poll reflects how the attitudes of society are changing.

Just as society once considered mixed race marriages 'abnormal' and such couples were shunned by society- so to will some bigots shun homosexuals.

But attitudes change over time- and bigots like Boss are the ones that end up being shunned.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kobie said:
> ...



Of course you can't provide any proof of your heterosexuality, or for that matter, your homosexuality. 

Or are we to take your word for it?

There is no known test. 

That is unlike race or gender, which have reliable tests to determine.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight. 

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Does anyone actually believe anything Boss posts? Remember- everything Boss posts is his opinion- not based upon facts, not supported by evidence- just his opinion.

And what is the background he has provided us?


_My opinion was changed by my close friends who are gay couple, who had a wedding in 1986 in rural Alabama. I had assumed they supported gay marriage... being they were openly gay and had a wedding._

So Boss's close friends got married- not legally- but as Boss has pointed out marriage doesn't require a law- but he attended his 'close friends' marriage ceremony. 

So what does Boss think about the marriage of his 'close friends'_?_

_
What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. (They can be gay or straight) Same sex partners can't marry the same reason they can't procreate. It takes a male and female... a union. They can pretend. We can all pretend.

With same sex partners there is no union of genders because they are the same. Their "marital union" can only be one of sexual behavior.

So we have "real" marriage, and we have "gay" marriage.... like real crab and imitation crab.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage.


Man- I wouldn't want to be Boss's close friends- since he thinks their marriage is not a real marriage- and it is only about sex. 
_
Oh and how does Boss feel about women?

Summarized by one statement by Boss
_
I don't care about marrying Kate….. I just want to marry her titties

What a champ Boss is.








_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yeah Boss keeps making this claim- quoting himself, citing himself.

And like always- he ignores the facts.

And the fact is that Obergefell was one of dozens- maybe hundreds of cases of gay couples filing lawsuit demanding that their constitutional right to marry be recognized.

The Supreme Court cases that gives Boss so much Butthurt was driven entirely by homosexuals. The DOMA case was driven by homosexuals.

The California case was driven by homosexuals.

Boss is lying again. Maybe even to himself- but he is lying.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Does anyone actually believe anything Boss posts? Remember- everything Boss posts is his opinion- not based upon facts, not supported by evidence- just his opinion.
> 
> And what is the background he has provided us?
> 
> ...



You might want to address that you think Bruce Jenner is a woman simply because he bought a set of titties. 

What a hypocrite you are.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



If addressing Boss, quote Boss.

What a moron


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience.  Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone actually believe anything Boss posts? Remember- everything Boss posts is his opinion- not based upon facts, not supported by evidence- just his opinion.
> ...



So you want to marry Kate Upton's titties also?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

playtime said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do. 

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues. 

That is why most would want a straight child......


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, but if she wants to loan em to me for a bit, I'd have ta give that some thought!


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts. Is that what you mean the state will "hold"  (whatever the significance of that is)?  They also "hold" rapists and child molesters, does that mean the state is sanctioning, condoning and endorsing rape and child molesting? It must... they are holding them! 

There will be no state sanctioning of marriages. No gay ones,  no straight ones, no civil ones, no contracted ones, no "held" ones, no pretend ones or real ones. You can dismiss it as nothing more than a simple clerical detail in paperwork but it's a significant detail. You can think it's meaningless, loony, pointless, whatever... I don't care. In fact, I think that is a good thing. It means you don't have any objections.

If you're okay with this and I'm okay with this, why are we continuing to argue? You don't think it does what I claim? Okay... fine... again, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion. I think it removes the state from sanctioning marriages. I also think it will ultimately be the solution many states adopt. Marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution is going bye-bye.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


?  

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you.
> ...



Pshh.. I know gay people who use the word faggot. Is it like the "N" word with blacks, only gays can use it? That would be typical of the double standards you hypocrites promote. 

Like I said before, you need to grow some thicker skin if you're going to be a weirdo.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



How incredibly stupid and ignorant. 

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes- f*ggot is like n*gger and K*ke.

Basically people like Boss use the word f*ggot for the same reason that David Duke would use 'N*gger'.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Except that of course nothing you are saying is going to happen.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you want to marry Kate Upton's titties also?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Only opposite sex couples have to take offspring into consideration during their unique, and ultimately important sex act. 

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



And she my "Mr. Happy"

I'm sure if she saw mine, she would agree. 

Good lord you are lame.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



To quote the silliest Sally on the board:

Says you!


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The problem here is, you've taken something completely out of context and you refuse to realize it. The state still has to recognize contract law. They still have to uphold the Constitution. State agencies and courts still have to accept your out-of-state device regardless of what it's called as a matter of legal jurisprudence. They do not have any choice in that matter. 

We are hung up on the contextual meaning of "recognize" here. When I am using this term, I mean "sanction" or "endorse" or "authorize" or "license" gay marriage. You know, to 'recognize' in an official capacity. You are using a broader context of the word to mean "acknowledge existence of."  Now, I can't do a thing in the world for your atrophied brain. If you don't comprehend context, that's your problem. 

Licensing IS state sanctioning. There is no other way to put it. It is the official state sanctioning, endorsing and authorizing of a particular thing. Alabama will not be doing it anymore. You can complete a form and get a civil union contract. The state doesn't care what you do with that... if you want to call it a "marriage" contract, that's your business, the state isn't calling it anything other than a civil union contract. Nothing else changes because nothing else needs to change.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You don't seem to understand.  Under the bill that was proposed, Alabama would still be authorizing marriages.  It would not simply be Alabama recognizing out of state marriages.  Couples would still get civil marriages in Alabama.  They would not get contracts which they could name what they want, they would get state authorized civil marriages.

Perhaps some future bill will change that, but the bill that has already been proposed and ended up not being passed because it needed a super-majority or something like that would have had the state continuing to provide civil marriages.

If you can show where the bill would have changed civil marriages into civil unions, please do.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your backwards assed state would still have to abide by Full Faith and Credit. You would STILL have married couples, gay and straight, living in Alabama.


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




LOL- some may welcome the fact that isn't a consideration... ie  sterile heteros.


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm sure some do... but it's still different when *you* say it.   You aren't being facetious when you do it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Says Boss- quoting Boss- citing Boss.

The problem here is with Boss's bizarre fantasy of the world.


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



There's too many people on this freakin' planet as it is.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So why exactly do you want to marry Kate Upton's titties- and not the rest of her?


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.



LOL- not to worry:

Worldometers - real time world statistics


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LOL- Boss- unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Not to mention the fact that gays have always existed and still the species perpetuates.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You don't seem to understand. Under the bill that was proposed, Alabama would still be authorizing marriages.



No, they specifically would not be.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Couples would still get civil marriages in Alabama.



Couples all over the world are still going to get civil marriages no matter WHAT Alabama does.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> ..they would get state authorized civil marriages.



No, they would get state-authorized *contracts of civil union*. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If you can show where the bill would have changed civil marriages into civil unions, please do.



The text of the bill is available but you have this trouble understanding context so it won't do you much good to read it. You are interpreting Alabama's obligation under the Constitution and federal laws as "state recognition" and that's not the same meaning I am talking about. 

We've been over it a thousand times. You say it only changes from a license to a contract... fine. That's all it has to do. That simple action removes the state from sanctioning or endorsing the act. If you don't think it does... fine. I believe that's what it does. Are we just going to argue over that? What difference does it make?


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Your backwards assed state would still have to abide by Full Faith and Credit. You would STILL have married couples, gay and straight, living in Alabama.



GREAT! Just so long as they don't start wearing mullets and waving rebel flags around!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

playtime said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Some have reproductive disabilities that your response would appear cruel to.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

playtime said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I'm glad you know so much about my motivations.... I always wonder why I say the shit I do.  I've often lost sleep at night wondering why I am motivated to say things. If only I had known you were out there to explain it all to me! So you feel free to jump in anytime you see me saying something to interject the reason and motivation for why I am saying it, and then I will be a complete person.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Who are you talking to?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

playtime said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.
> ...



Thank us later


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You- the tiny dick reference should have made it clear.

But I understand your confusion since I also refered to your micro-penis buddy Boss.

unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Hilarious coming from the thin skinned poster who tells us all the time the motivations of homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If you can show where the bill would have changed civil marriages into civil unions, please do.
> ...



Translation: Boss is not going to post the actual text here because 
a) it would set a dangerous precedent if Boss posted facts and
b) it would show that his claims are as stupid as the rest of his claims.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


'
Oh, I already did cite the Alabama SB377. And it explicitly contradicted him. So Boss put me on ignore.

There are just some people that are so committed to the idea of their own infallibility that they'll ignore any evidence, *even their own sources, *to continue to polish whatever turd they cling to.

And Boss is their king.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ..they would get state authorized civil marriages.
> ...



Save that the two parties have to be legally authorized to marry in the State of Alabama. And unlike any other contract, their contract of marriage* is a record of marriage* held with the Department of Health of Alabama.

Says who? Says SB377 of course.



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph 2 said:
			
		

> (2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



So any other contract in Alabama requires that the participants be legally authorized to marry each other?

I think you may be mistaking Alabama contract law for whatever pseudo-legal nonsense you just made up. They aren't the same thing. And it gets worse:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph E said:
			
		

> "The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
> record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
> Department of Public Health and made a part of its record"
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



"Any" contract doesn't constitute a legal record of marriage.

*Remember, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.* And you're quite literally ignoring the very law you claim to be citing. SB377 doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ..they would get state authorized civil marriages.
> ...



From SB377 : 
"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter
27
into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
Page 1
1
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.
6
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
7
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
8
(4) The signatures of the parties.
9
The marriage contract shall be witnessed by two
10
adult witnesses.
11
(c) A marriage contract meeting the requirements of
12
this section shall be valid upon recording.
13
(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to
14
be married.
15
(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the
16
judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
17
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
18
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
19
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
20
(f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

I eagerly await your explanation of why the bill talks over and over about people getting marriages in Alabama rather than civil unions.  An explanation of how having the two parties be 'legally authorized to marry' is not the state authorizing marriages would also be appreciated.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Ah, I see your confusion. You're citing the ACTUAL bill. Boss is citing the one he's made up in his head. Apples and Oranges.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I don't need to explain why they are obeying the laws already on the books. You need to explain why you think they could have another option. The bill has to abide by the law. I'm sorry if that disappoints you that it does. With marriage, there are dozens and dozens of assorted aspects tied to many different laws. They have to make it clear that what they are doing is still going to be in accordance with those aspects and their respective legal rights. They don't have another option. 

You act as though, because this law doesn't idiotically and defiantly stomp a foot down in the schoolhouse door and refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling, that it is meaningless and superficial. I know that is what you WISH were happening here, but what is ACTUALLY happening is, the State of Alabama is removing itself from responsibility when it comes to your perverted versions of marriage. They will not participate in sanctioning it any longer. 

Do they still have to give you your constitutional rights? Of course they do, what choice do they have?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Translation: Boss can't cite any part of the bill that backs any part of his hapless bullshit. Even when the entire bill is offered to him verbatim.

I told you Montro.....the actual bill won't matter. He hasn't read it, has no idea what it says, and cares less. Boss' only source is Boss.

And his source sucks.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

What I am 'acting like' is that this bill was designed to prevent Kim Davis-type situations, with state employees refusing to issue marriage licenses, by taking away the licensing.  The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill, both those from other states and those from Alabama, including marriages obtained after passage of the bill.

Every time you are asked to cite a law or court ruling to give evidence of claims about that law or court ruling, you come back with something like this.  "I don't need to explain".  You don't need to, but by not doing so you certainly don't give you claims any more credibility.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Nothing. Not a fucking thing. There's not one bit of Boss' gibberish that is backed by any part of the actual bill. Its only the imaginary version that Boss has made up says what he believes.

Which is why Boss ignores ANY citation of SB377. And can't cite a single passage that backs his claims. 

Yet clings to his sad, baseless nonsense all the same. You can't use evidence to convince people who have no use for evidence.* Boss' only source....is himself. *


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ignorant. Sexuality is not a requirement of same-sex marriage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


There ya go, fighting with yourself again.  

Earlier, you pointed out it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. Now you're making it about gay marriage again. 

Lemme know which one of you wins the fight.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I did, your just punch drunk from the beating you've taken.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You just can't stop fantasizing about straight men having gay sex, can you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Agreed, never said it was.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You are sick. But that was obvious from the start


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not sick at all. Just can't help but notice how much you talk about straight men being gay. What other reason is there for such behavior other than you can't stop fantasizing about it?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Only Syriously. Claims he's straight cuz I guess he can't face the fact he's not.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


As usual, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Alabama proposed _"abolishing the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate."_​
That's it.

Your nonsense that there will be _*"no marriage contracts"*_ is your own hallucination.

Alabama proposed _"(4) The signatures of the parties. The *marriage contract* shall be witnessed by two adult witnesses.

(c) A *marriage contract* meeting the requirements of this section shall be valid upon recording. 

(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to be married. 

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county *and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage.* A copy of the contract shall be 18 transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record."_​
You know that truth and facts would be on your side if you weren't so fucking deranged.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Now you're lying. You had gay fantasies about me too. I can only guess you're lying because you're embarrassed about your bizarre fetish.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Boss never knows what he's talking about. He's what I like to call 'aggressively ignorant'. As the more information you provide, the more belligerently he ignores it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ..they would get state authorized civil marriages.
> ...


You know you're fucking deranged, right?

No, they would not be getting _"state-authorized *contracts of civil union*."_ They would be getting  *"contracts of marriage."*

_Alabama proposes... to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that *the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage* presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed *contract of marriage*;_​Alabama would still recognize marriages as they always have. They will recognize all valid marriages including gay marriages, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shake your cane at the sky. The only difference is that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses.

Even worse for your dementia, other than the stated change that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses, 

_Alabama continues (f) *This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state*, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.;_​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There would be no way of telling, would there. 

Guess you have to rely on what I say, just as I have to rely on gays saying they are. 

So, there Ya go. Continue with your drivel as though anyone really cares. 

But of course, how Ya gonna know?


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You beat yourself? Good for you.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Odd? I could have sworn you said, _"a sexuality claimed the discrimination."_ How could a "sexuality" establish such a claim of discrimination where no such sexuality is a requirement unless you were talking about a "sexuality?"


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I can only go by what you say. And what you're saying is that you can't stop fantasizing about straight men engaging in gay sex.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well Boss prefers his own opinions to those 'fact' thingies.

Well do fantasies count as opinions? Boss posts a lot of fantasies too. 

Like his fantasy of being forced to have sex with gay men.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Of course you don't need to explain anything.

You just make crap up and pretend its real.

This entire thread is your anti-gay fantasy being shoveled like manure onto the internet.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If that's what trips your trigger, I'm sure you can find a porn site that caters to perverts like you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Tell us more about your tiny little micro penis and how that is the reason why you only use it to continue the species?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Tell us more about your challenge of having a micro penis and how that has made you so sexually represssed.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well and remember- Pops can't stop talking about incest.

He brings it up in every thread.

Why is Pops so obsessed about incest?

Is it because of his micro-penis?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Seriously, the incest obsessed poster, strikes again


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Your projections aside, is there a thread you post in where you don't talk about incest?


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?



I don't know what "people will get" under the bill other than a civil union contract from the state. I guess they can get married, live together, fuck their goats... I don't know?  Don't care, to be honest. 

The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> What I am 'acting like' is that this bill was designed to prevent Kim Davis-type situations...



Well the bill was introduced before Kim Davis but yes, it would eliminate those kind of situations. It was designed to remove the state from responsibility of sanctioning weirdo marriages. The SCOTUS has ruled on what the Constitution says but the Constitution does not say Alabama has to sanction marriages.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill...



And that's fine if that's what you believe, I am not going to argue with you. I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts. You don't agree? Fine, I don't care that you don't agree. It doesn't really matter, the State of Alabama wasn't intending on consulting you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You are such an idiot. You continue to cite parts of the bill which outline it's conformity with the recent SCOTUS ruling and all related laws regarding the institution of civil domestic marriage as it is now defined by law according to SCOTUS. 

So you're pointing to something the State *can't do anything about and can't legally defy* and claiming that means they are _sanctioning_ marriage even though they are expressly eliminating all state sanctioning of any kind of marriage. 

But hey... Okay! I'm fine with you not having a problem with it.  My goal and purpose in life is NOT to have you upset and pissed off about my State defying SCOTUS or trying to go rogue and make their own laws.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill...
> ...



Yet you still have not shown anywhere that civil marriage would be replaced by civil union contracts in the bill.  That is because the bill doesn't say that.  In fact, the bill goes on in length about the marriages that would continue to exist in and be granted by the state.

The state of Alabama wasn't consulting you either.  That's clear from the fact that what you claim is in the bill is not.

You don't agree?  Fine, but unlike you, I (and others) actually provide text of the bill to support my argument.  When you are asked to do so you cannot.  That seems to leave the argument between the text of the bill and your opinion.  I'll go with what it says rather than what you think it says.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Do you think the only way a state sanctions an act is by licensing?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?
> ...



The bill is pretty clear that couples would be getting legally married in the state of Alabama if the bill passed.  Here's another example, from page 12, §30-1-14.  
"
1
"Any judge, minister of the gospel, or other person
2
uniting persons in matrimony or any clerk or keeper of the
3
minutes of a religious society celebrating marriage by the
4
consent of the parties before the congregation, who fails to
5
return a certificate thereof to file the contract of marriage
6
with the judge of probate, as required by law, is guilty of a
7
misdemeanor."

In the bill, 'return a certificate thereof' is redacted and replaced by 'file the contract of marriage with the judge of probate'.  So the bill says that for someone to unite persons in matrimony they must file the contract of marriage with the judge of probate.  Failing to do so is a misdemeanor crime.

Is uniting in matrimony somehow granting a civil union rather than a marriage now?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



See did I call it or what?

He can't stop talking about incest.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.
> ...


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

*Even after * showing you the bill which clearly reads the state will be accepting contracts of marriage which the state will file -- *you still don't know * _"what the people will get."_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill...
> ...



Yet Boss continues to argue on and on.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, it replaces the licensing with a form you fill out and obtain a contract. The State doesn't have anything to do with your intentions for a contract. I suppose that is up to you.  The State is obligated by law to administer the contract, they can't do anything about that and this was the case before Obergefell as well. Sanction and administration are two completely different things. 

And whether the State was consulting me or not, I have you know that my State Representatives know me on a first name basis as a result of my ongoing communication with them. I've been pushing for this solution for over a decade. 

The text of ANY bill that deals with something as complex as marriage and involves federal laws and constitutional rulings by SCOTUS is going to be worded in a way that it has to be worded in order to be legal and passed legitimately. I don't know what to tell you about that... you've not told me what other option they had. As for the State's official position, they will no longer be sanctioning any kind of marriage. 

All of these silly things came up years ago when I first proposed civil unions as a solution to the gay marriage issue. _Well what are you gonna do about this and that?_ And I said then, exactly what the State of Alabama is saying now, that we keep the same laws as they are, everyone still has their precious rights, we simply switch from marriage to unions. We remove the government from the marriage business and let the people and churches define it. 

When I said this, the same idiots were hollering... _"do away with marriage...duhz...that's crazy talk, boss!" _ And I've never said we're going to "do away" with anything other than the official state sanctioning of marriages.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why on Earth would I be pissed off because you're deranged? Let's be clear here... the only purpose you serve here for me is for my entertainment. Stop talking like a complete imbecile and I'll get bored.

And again, the parts of the bill I cited expose you as the moron you are. The parts I cited clearly read the state is treating marriage exactly as before with the exception that they would no longer require judges of probate to issue licenses but would instead have them accept contracts of marriage which they would have filed with the state.

You know, the polar opposite of the lunacy you're claming.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I know exactly what the bill says and what the people will get. I know the State will no longer be licensing or sanctioning marriages. The people will get a form to fill out and apply for a contract. The State has to record it and complete necessary legal documentation. They have to abide by the Constitution and obey federal laws in whatever they do. There is not another option.  How they have to word things to pass constitutional muster is, again, not in their control. They have to do this. 

What they DON'T have to do, according to the Constitution, is sanction marriages.


----------



## Boss (Oct 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope. It's exactly what I have been claiming and what I have been advocating for since about 2005, when "gay marriage" became this huge urgent social issue that just had to be resolved. 

But again, thank you so very much for reinforcing the point that you have absolutely no objections or problems with the bill. That it doesn't violate the law or constitutional rights of anyone. That it doesn't change anything with regard to the legal status of domestic partnerships. I am glad to know we have your endorsement!  I think it is wonderful, in this day and age of vitriol in politics, when two opposing sides can come together.


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


More bullshit. First and foremost,  you continue to deny the contracts are contrcts of *marriage*, even though that's what they are defined as in the bill. Plus, who says they have to accept contacts of marriage at all?


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I have no problem with the bill which is why I've said nothing negatively about it. Why would I care what Alabama does? I don't live in that backwards armpit.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well, that's the whole deal, the State doesn't need a contract. However things are defined in the bill has nothing to do with the state endorsement or sanctioning of marriage. That is eliminated with the licensing. The contract, no matter what it's called, is not between the State and anybody, it's between two consenting legal adults. The State is simply following the law and administering it. They are not a party to the action in the contract so it doesn't really matter what it's for. 

The point that seems to be flying over your head is the difference between authorizing a license and administering a contract. These terms imply completely different things and if you don't understand it, I don't know how to explain it any clearer than I have. If you don't think it changes anything, I say that's great... less opposition to it!   Thanks for your continued support!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



See I called it. 

Just like homosexuals created a mythical thing called "gay marriage" (actually same sex marriage), they create a discussion about something that never happened. 

Prove me wrong Sally, post the Statute that creates a qualification that sex is a requirement for marriage. 

Hee hee......

Sally can't, so it creates something out of thin air 

Typical.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I post that it is an act

I post that by acting in that matter, the individuals commit a crime.

I post that marriage law does not require sexual contact as a qualification

You inject incest into this because you must think that all sibling must want to hump each other. That makes YOU a pervert.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 21, 2015)

Poor Boss...That bill doesn't say what chu tink it says...


----------



## Faun (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.  Alabama would still recognize marriages. All marriages including gay marriages. It even says so in the bill.


----------



## Faun (Oct 21, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


In other words... _*"no."*_


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If you say so, I've also posted about due process. Why not bring that up?

Hmmmm, because due process demand proof that a crime has happened before the State can administer its judgement?

So, since marriage does not require sex, and you BELIEVE siblings would break the law by having sex by applying for a licence, do you want all siblings jailed? I mean, in your whacked out mind they all are potential criminals.


----------



## Faun (Oct 21, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why would I want anyone jailed for applying for a license? Since when is that a crime?

And your idiocy has been thoroughly refuted by the fact that a gay man has never been allowed to marry his lesbian sister. Or cases where a brother & sister were incapable of bearing children together. Clearly, laws preventing a brother and sister from marrying extend to beyond being just about procreation.

And there goes your entire premise. *poof*


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Please point to the part of the bill which replaces civil marriages with civil unions.  You claim that the state will no longer grant marriages, instead granting civil unions.  You have yet to show where in the bill that change is documented....because you can't.  It isn't part of the bill.  The bill specifically and repeatedly says that Alabama will still be granting marriages.

You keep talking about needing to follow federal marriage laws.  Do you think that Alabama has no state laws involving marriage?

If licensing is required for something to be a state sanctioned, authorized, recognized marriage, why does the state of Alabama choose to recognize unlicensed common law marriage?  Most states do not, but Alabama does.  Perhaps the state does not agree with your beliefs regarding the importance of licensing.

Your argument has no credibility when you are unwilling and unable to show the portion(s) of the bill which do what you claim.  Only those arguing with you have been willing to use the actual text of the bill to support their argument.  That's because the actual text of the bill shows that your claims are almost all wrong.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If you know exactly what it says, please show where it says that the state will no longer grant marriages and instead will grant civil unions.

And again, do you think there are no Alabama laws involving marriage?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nope, the legal status of domestic partnerships aren't changed.  They will still be marriages where authorized by the state.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 21, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You still can't stop talking about incest.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 21, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pops can't stop posting about sex and incest.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why? Another assumption on your part.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I'll let you know when I start talking about it Sally


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You still can't stop fantasizing about siblings humping each other.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, "recognize" can have various meanings depending on context. The context I've used it in is sanctioning or licensing. The context you are using is acknowledgement and rule of law. If we use my context, I am right. If we use your context, you are right. But you are like a little Palestinian, you do not recognize the right of my context to exist. I can't do anything about that, just as Alabama can't do anything about having to follow the constitution and rule of law. 

What it all boils down to is, you think the Alabama bill does nothing and is totally superficial and meaningless. And I've said, that's fine with me. I don't need for you to believe it does anything or changes anything. My motive is not to get you riled up by passing a bill that defiantly ignores federal laws or the constitution. 

Now, if the bill does nothing and means nothing, as you argue... it really feels like, the only reason you are arguing about it is because you don't like the idea that I believe it does mean something and change something. That kinda says something for you as a person, doesn't it?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 21, 2015)

The Alabama bill is moot. It died last month.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Please point to the part of the bill which replaces civil marriages with civil unions.



_This bill would abolish the requirement to 2 obtain a marriage license from the judge of 3 probate. 4 This bill would provide that marriage would 5 be entered into by simple contract,_

Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are. 

I have said that Alabama plans on removing the state from sanctioning of any marriage. The sanctioning aspect comes from the act of licensing. A license is a document issued by an authority granting permission to do something. The issuing of a license implies approval, endorsement and condoning of whatever the license is for. If the State issues a license for driving, it is implied they approve, endorse and condone the action of driving. If they issue a license for fishing or hunting, the same thing applies. 

Obviously, administering a contract is a different thing completely. However, you are using the fact that the legislation uses the language "marriage contract" to infer there is no distinction between a contract and license. The fact that Alabama has to use specific language in order to comply with federal laws and the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, has nothing to do with the state sanctioning of an activity itself. 



Montrovant said:


> The bill specifically and repeatedly says that Alabama will still be granting marriages.



No, it specifically does not say that. Alabama cannot grant marriage. How can the State "grant" something that is a fundamental constitutional right? That doesn't even make rational sense. They didn't "grant" marriages BEFORE Obergefell. 



Montrovant said:


> You keep talking about needing to follow federal marriage laws. Do you think that Alabama has no state laws involving marriage?



No, I have repeatedly said there are a number of laws concerning marriage, spouses, marital relations, etc. I didn't say they are all federal, in fact, since marriage is a state institution, most of them are not federal. Alabama still has to comply with the constitution and rule of law. Whenever they pass legislation regarding something like marriage, which does involve so many other laws associated with marriage, they are going to have to use particular language in order to address those relevant issues. They can't defiantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of marriage and all the laws associated with marriage. They can't ignore these aspects and pretend they don't have to be addressed. Any such a thing would spell certain doom and failure of their bill. 



Montrovant said:


> If licensing is required for something to be a state sanctioned, authorized, recognized marriage, why does the state of Alabama choose to recognize unlicensed common law marriage?



Because you are using "recognize" in a different context. 



Montrovant said:


> That's because the actual text of the bill shows that your claims are almost all wrong.



Well no... the made up argument you've created for me is wrong. MY argument is that Alabama will no longer license (i.e. sanction) marriages.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> The Alabama bill is moot. It died last month.



Yes it did but it will be back next session. The bill didn't die, it was voted on and passed but it required a super majority because it wasn't on the governor's agenda. That is a throwback to the days of George Wallace when the legislature was controlled by Democrats. 

Governor Bentley is probably one of the most socially conservative governors in the US. This issue wasn't on his agenda because he had no way of knowing it was going to come up. The next session of the state legislature, it will be on the governor's agenda and the bill will pass again, as it did the first time.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 21, 2015)

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.



No, I think you're arguing because you can't be satisfied unless you make me miserable. This is about inflicting discomfort on me personally. You've all gone on record to say that you believe this bill changes nothing and doesn't mean a thing... but yet, you're all still here arguing for some reason. I've said that it's fine if you don't believe it changes anything or mean anything, but that doesn't seem to matter. 

Now the thing you really need to know is this... I am not miserable. I am not discomforted. You pinheads don't bother me. You changing my arguments into arguments I haven't made, doesn't bother me. I will continue to point it out to others so they realize what a dishonest punk you are, but it really doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.



What state?  We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage. 

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!


----------



## playtime (Oct 21, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And I'm not talking to them, but rather the homophobes that have no problems with *their* own cruelty.


----------



## playtime (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



get off the stage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

playtime said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



Yeahhh..... that's not gonna happen.  Sorry.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.
> ...



What state? The state if ingrained bigotry of course. Trying to weasel out of issuing marriage licenses to gays just like they tried with interracial couples.

A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.
> ...



LOL- oh yes- because of course anyone who responds to your rant against homosexuals is just trying to make you miserable.

Just like gays are trying to force you to have sex with them.

What a loon.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.
> ...



Alabama has a proud history- and would never discriminate against anyone.....

_Year 2000
Following a November 7th ballot referendum, Alabama becomes the last state to officially legalize interracial marriage.

By November 2000, interracial marriage had been legal in every state for more than three decades thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967) - but the Alabama State Constitution still contained an unenforceable ban in Section 102:

"The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."The Alabama State Legislature stubbornly clung to the old language as a symbolic statement of the state's views on interracial marriage; as recently as 1998, House leaders successfully killed attempts to remove Section 102.

When voters finally had the opportunity to remove the language, the outcome was surprisingly close: although 59% of voters supported removing the language, 41% favored keeping it. Interracial marriage remains controversial in the Deep South, where a 2011 poll found that a plurality of Mississippi Republicans still support anti-miscegenation laws._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.
> ...



It takes two to argue.

Boss however wants to argue about why it is wrong for your to argue back.


----------



## playtime (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Pompous homophobic egos usually don't.


----------



## Faun (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> What it all boils down to is, you think the Alabama bill does nothing and is totally superficial and meaningless.


You are fucking deranged. 

I never said that.

In fact, I even pointed out what the bill does.

Seriously ... what the fuck is wrong with you??


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



But we've been over this, no one is "weaseling out" of anything with this bill. Everyone on your side agrees that it doesn't change anything with regard to your constitutional rights or how the issue of marriage is treated with regard to the law. 

Marriage licenses are up to state discretion. The constitution does not compel the state to sanction marriage. It's not like interracial marriages, you know that it's not, you just want to keep pretending it is because that is emotive. It's an attempt to try and feel self-righteous, which is ironic since religion is your primary opponent and religion is also what fostered civil rights as well as an end to slavery. 

And let me tell you something else, black people in general, are highly offended that you would equate in any way, their struggle for civil rights with your struggle to legitimize homosexual marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Just like inter-racial marriages- Alabama tried to block inter-racial marriages- and failed.

Now Alabamans get a twofer- they don't have to sanction 'gay marriage' or 'interracial marriage'.

Of course everyone will continue to get married- recognized by the state.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nothing like a white dude telling us what 'black people in general feel to make me feel humbled.

Of course what does a black woman who actually experienced the ban on mixed race marriages feel?

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

But sure- we should believe the white bigot Boss- rather than Mildred Loving.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.



Here, let me quote :


Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ..they would get state authorized civil marriages.
> ...





Boss said:


> There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts.





Boss said:


> I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts.



Care to revise your stance about dishonesty here?



Boss said:


> I have said that Alabama plans on removing the state from sanctioning of any marriage. The sanctioning aspect comes from the act of licensing. A license is a document issued by an authority granting permission to do something. The issuing of a license implies approval, endorsement and condoning of whatever the license is for. If the State issues a license for driving, it is implied they approve, endorse and condone the action of driving. If they issue a license for fishing or hunting, the same thing applies.



For someone who complains about nit-picking you do an awful lot of it.  If the bill had, instead of requiring a marriage contract for marriage changed licenses to permits, would you still be arguing that the state isn't sanctioning marriage?  Is a license the only way in which a state may sanction an activity?



Boss said:


> Obviously, administering a contract is a different thing completely. However, you are using the fact that the legislation uses the language "marriage contract" to infer there is no distinction between a contract and license. The fact that Alabama has to use specific language in order to comply with federal laws and the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, has nothing to do with the state sanctioning of an activity itself.



Marriage was already a form of contract, although somewhat different from other contracts.  

I am not inferring no distinction between a contract and license.  I am inferring, based on the bill's statement that no other marriage law would be changed, that marriages in Alabama would be treated the same by the state before and after the bill.  The change the bill made was in the method of entering into marriage, not how the state treats marriages.

Again you bring up the need to comply with federal law.  Why would Alabama keep all of their state laws regarding marriage as well?  This bill would simply adjust the language of their law so that marriage was entered into in a different fashion.  The state could still reject a marriage if the participants were not legally authorized to be married.



Boss said:


> No, it specifically does not say that. Alabama cannot grant marriage. How can the State "grant" something that is a fundamental constitutional right? That doesn't even make rational sense. They didn't "grant" marriages BEFORE Obergefell.



Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking.  The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages.  Pick a word you are comfortable with.



Boss said:


> Well no... the made up argument you've created for me is wrong. MY argument is that Alabama will no longer license (i.e. sanction) marriages.



If your only argument was that Alabama would no longer issue marriage licenses under the bill, there would have been no argument.  You have argued more than just that, as the quotes in this post (and other things you've said not in this post) clearly show.


----------



## Boss (Oct 21, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.



They are not going to issue permits. Why does the State need to permit you to do a fundamental constitutional right? Why does it need to be authorized by them? The State doesn't issue marriage... marriage is a union of two individuals according to SCOTUS... has it changed again?  

You're really not making much sense. The State is going to wash it's hands of sanctioning marriages. They will hand you a form and file it with the necessary agencies or whatever, but that is something they are obligated to do already. 

Again...you are fine with this, it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights, doesn't change a thing except for the state not sanctioning marriage in an official capacity. Instead of authorizing it through a license, they will administer a contract.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.
> ...



Did you miss the commas?  I didn't say issues permits, I said issues marriage, permits marriage.....in other words, giving examples of words you can use instead of grant, since you had a nit-picking issue with that term.

Again, marriage is not the only fundamental right that ever requires state authorization or permission to exercise.  That's been gone over multiple times. 

According to the bill, anyone entering into marriage must be legally authorized to do so.

You are obviously going to continue to conflate sanction and license, I'll assume those words are interchangeable when you use them.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well, I tried a couple of words and you insisted on taking them out of context. Now you say it doesn't matter what word we use the state is still authorizing permission. How the state authorizes permission for you to exercise a constitutional right, I have no idea. 

*sanc·tion* - official permission or approval for an action.
*li·cense* - a permit from an authority to do a particular thing.

(aka: What Alabama will no longer be doing with marriages.)

So the ball is back in your court just that quickly. But I have to ask this... How long do you generally argue over things that don't make a difference or matter? This particular argument has been going on for about a week and you're still no closer to winning it. We can repeat and rehash the same points over and over again for another week if you like, you're still not going to win this argument. But at what point does your mind tell you.. meh, it's just not worth it to me anymore? You'd have to think that most rational people who truly believed this changed nothing, would have already moved on.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, we have been over it. Alabama is continuing it's practice of being the state where the bigots live. It's where the bigots lived in the 60s and it's where they live now. The bigots tried to keep blacks from marrying whites and now they want to keep gays from marrying each other. They failed then, they will fail now. 



> Marriage licenses are up to state discretion. The constitution does not compel the state to sanction marriage. It's not like interracial marriages, you know that it's not, you just want to keep pretending it is because that is emotive. It's an attempt to try and feel self-righteous, which is ironic since religion is your primary opponent and religion is also what fostered civil rights as well as an end to slavery.



No, I don't know it's not. I know it's exactly like interracial marriage in that non familial consenting adults are marrying and the bigots don't want them to. In that regard it is exactly like interracial marriage. 

No, religion is not my "opponent", bigots within a religion are...and they are a dwindling minority. 

By the way, religion was one of the primary drivers and arguments for the bigots too. 

*How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

The Religious Defense of American Slavery*



> And let me tell you something else, black people in general, are highly offended that you would equate in any way, their struggle for civil rights with your struggle to legitimize homosexual marriage.



Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:

_“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”_


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:
> 
> _“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”_



The rejection of gay marriage is not homophobia. That is your bigotry shining through.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:
> ...



Yeah, actually it is. It's anti gay bigotry (read homophobia)


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No. It's actually not. We don't allow ANY group to redefine our traditional pillars. It has nothing to do with bigotry, it's common fucking sense. Something you have little of.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:
> ...



Not everyone who objects to gay marriage is a homophobe.

But based upon your OP- you certainly are a homophobe- one who lives in fear of gay men forcing you to have sex with them.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Boss- still arguing about why it doesn't make any sense for anyone to continue to argue with him.

Why he can't follow his own advice?

Well because even he doesn't believe what he wrote.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you?  Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state.  Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!  

Before you argue, let me once again quote the actual bill : 
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking about approval, that you think the bill would remove state approval from marriage.  Your definition says permission, however, and couples would clearly still need permission from the state to enter into civil marriage after the bill.

I would argue that in allowing marriages the state is tacitly approving them, but that is a separate argument.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.
> ...



Any chance you're going to respond to this?  I've given multiple quotes in which you claimed that instead of marriage Alabamans would get civil unions.  You called me a 'pathetic and dishonest low-life' for pointing out that you made such a claim.  Are you going to respond to the clear proof that you did, in fact, make such claims?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 22, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Boss rarely does. Most of Boss' threads follow this pattern:

1) Boss makes outrageous claims in an OP
2) Boss can't back those outrageous claims in the OP
3) Boss slowly concedes virtually every point in the OP

Which is why Boss abandoned the 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' thread and its every accusation. And brought it here to be beaten again.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're facing what I like to call 'belligerent ignorance'. Where the willfully ignorance has no idea what they are talking about. And the more accurate, relevant information you bring up.....the  more abusive they become. 

And you Mont.....commited the cardinal sin:* you quoted the ACTUAL bill rather than Boss' imaginary version. *So of course you're a 'pathetic and dishonest low-life'. As only such an individual would cite reality and use evidence rather than merely accepting whatever hapless bullshit that Boss makes up as gospel truth.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Obviously, administering a contract is a different thing completely. However, you are using the fact that the legislation uses the language "marriage contract" to infer there is no distinction between a contract and license. The fact that Alabama has to use specific language in order to comply with federal laws and the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, has nothing to do with the state sanctioning of an activity itself.



Two huge problems with your narrative:

First, the State of Alabama draws no distinction between a contract of marriage and a license of marriage in terms of the State's recognition of marriage. You made all that up, pulled sideways out of your ass, citing only yourself.

And you citing yourself is legally meaningless......because of point two:

Second, you have no idea what you're talking about.

1)  You said there was no contract of marriage under the Alabama bill. *You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about*.....as the bill specifically cites 'contracts of marriage'.

2) You said that there were only civil unions under the bill *You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.......*..the bill never mentions 'civil unions'* 
*
3) You said that the State no longer recognizes marriage under the bill.  *You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about*....the bill recognizes contracts of marriage as record of marriage, stored at the Department of Heath of Alabama.

4) You said that the state no longer authorized marriage under the bill. *You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about......*the bill requires all those entering the contract of marriage to be legally authorized by the State of Alabama to be married.

At every stage you were wrong. You are literally ignoring the very bill you claim to quote.

No thank you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!



LMAO? What, because you say so? 

Alabama is not officially authorizing you to do anything by administering a contract required by law. If you go to a car dealership and purchase a car on credit, you sit down with the finance manager and you fill out a contract for a loan with a financial institution. The dealer is not involved in any way with that contract other than administering it. They give you the form to fill out but the arrangement is between you and finance company and the dealer has nothing to do with it, nor are they "granting you permission" to finance the car. 

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the huge difference between a license and a contract?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!
> ...



Because the bill says so:



			
				Alabama SB377 said:
			
		

> Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties *who are otherwise legally authorized* to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



Remember, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. It tends to undermine your arguments.



> Alabama is not officially authorizing you to do anything by administering a contract required by law.


So when the bill in question says 'legally authorized to be married', they don't actually mean 'legally authorized to be married'......

_.....because you say so?_

Sigh....its almost like Andy Samberg could see this thread when he created his 'Like a Boss' video.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well from the State's perspective that's what you're going to get. You want to argue that because the bill uses the term "marriage contract" that it's still the same exact thing as a "marriage license" and I can't seem to penetrate your granite-like skull that there is a big difference between administering a contract and authorizing a license. 

I do know that every single word in whatever bill Alabama should pass, has to stand the test of constitutional scrutiny because it will be challenged. You are exploiting the fact that they have to address certain things using certain language to mean something it doesn't. I can't change your mind, it's convinced.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!
> ...



Why is it so hard for you to grasp that whether the state uses a license or a contract to authorize marriage, it is still authorizing marriage?  The bill states clearly that no other marriage laws are changed.  

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that when states give a marriage license, it is still for a marriage contract?

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the arrangement in marriage is between a couple and the state, not between the couple and no one else?

Using your example, the dealer would be analagous to the office of the judge of probate, while the financial institution would be the state.  

None of this is because I say so.  Unlike you, I actually provide quotes from the bill to support my points.

"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married"

Legally authorized to marry.

"f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

No other aspect of marriage law shall be affected, including the already-recognized unlicensed common law marriage.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2015RS/PrintFiles/SB377-eng.pdf

You are the only one who seems to be operating under the assumption that the only difference between marriage and any other contract is the issuance of a license.

And you still have failed to respond to the fact that you did, on multiple occasions, claim that this bill would change it so that rather than getting married, or obtaining a marriage contract, couples in Alabama would get civil unions.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license.  I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.  I am saying that the bill never says that couples in Alabama will no longer be getting married, or that couples in Alabama will be getting civil unions.  I am saying that your idea that licensing is the only way the state can sanction or authorize something is asinine, backed by no evidence, and in fact contradicted by the very definition of sanction you provided, as the state would still need to permit couples to marry and that would fit the 'official permission' definition of sanction.

You have not once shown anywhere in the bill that Alabama would change from marriage to civil union as you claimed.  You've lied and said you did not make that claim (calling me dishonest for pointing it out) and so I provided multiple quotes of you saying just that.  Now you are repeating the claim, despite the bill using the word marriage on numerous occasions and never using the term civil union at all.  I guess that marriages will be civil unions 'from the State's perspective'......because you say so?  

Oh, and couples who would get married under the bill would still need to be authorized to do so.  Not according to me, according to the actual text of the bill.  You know, that thing you fail to quote because it doesn't support your claims?


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why is it so hard for you to grasp that whether the state uses a license or a contract to authorize marriage, it is still authorizing marriage? The bill states clearly that no other marriage laws are changed.



Is a car dealer authorizing you to finance a car? By offering you an application for a contract between yourself and a finance company, are they approving your choice of car? Are they sanctioning your interest rate? Are they saying this is the only way to purchase the car? Are they, in any way, a party to the terms of the contract?


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.



You're only partially correct. You indicate you understand there is a difference between license and contract but then you go on to try and claim nothing would change. Well which one is it? Let me help you... the secret is in the difference between a licence and a contract. 

I think what is happening here is, some of you really do want for Alabama to be passing some kind of ignorant and defiant rejection of the SCOTUS ruling and that's not what is happening. Therefore, you claim that what they ARE doing is superficial, doesn't matter, doesn't change anything.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nope, sorry Skippy, it's still bigotry. It's bigotry when racists do it and it's bigotry when homophobes like you do it.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.
> ...



Marriage is a form of contract even when licensed.

There is a difference between a license and a permit.  If marriage were entered into with a permit does that mean the state would treat marriages differently?

The difference is how state authorized marriage is entered into, not what those marriages entail.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.
> ...



Actually it is the bill itself which says it doesn't change marriage law other than the way it is entered into.  That's been shown to you, using actual text from the bill, more than once.


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

The difference between reality and the car dealership analogy you dreamed up ... is .... the dealership doesn't hold your loan, the credit agency which gave you the loan does. Whereas, the state of Alabama would hold the marriage contracts. So while the car dealer is not involved with your contract between you and your credit agency, Alabama is directly involved with marriages taking place in their state.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yes, marriage is a form of contract... which is why it can be legally administered as a contract by the state. Again, the state action of administration for a contract is not a state sanctioning or endorsing of the reason for the contract. Licensing is specifically that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The State doesn't "hold" anything. The two parties hold the contract with each other. The State is simply administering the contract. They are not involved with marriages in the state, the have no idea whether you have a wedding and get married or not. They can't prevent you from breaking the contract and getting a divorce.... Nor can they force you to marry if you have a contract to do so. Those choices are totally between the two parties to the contract. The State is not involved other than as an administrative agent, which they are required by law to be.


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Of course it doesn't change marriage law. Again, what is the point in Alabama passing an unconstitutional law that cannot stand? The way that it is entered into is the only issue, that's why it's made clear this is the only thing that changes. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Why do you think I am making some other argument or claim? 

Look... do you want me to sit here and claim that Alabama is passing a law to run all them goddamn homo queers outta our state once and for all!? Is THAT what you want to hear me saying? By God, we're gonna pass a law to ban them faggots from marryin up in OUR state! That's what you want to hear me saying? Well guess what? It's NOT my argument! Hasn't ever been my argument! Won't ever be my argument! So you can keep on pretending that is what you're hearing me say... I can't do a damn thing about your mental disorder but it's not something I have said. You're not going to ever make me say it. 

Alabama is going to pass a law which removes the state from sanctioning marriages. Period!


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health *and made a part of its record.*​
Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


As usual, you spout complete nonsense.

My car is registered with my state. That authorizes it to be legally driven. And they did not license my car; yet by accepting my registration, they recognize my car as being legally allowed on public roads. Same way Alabama would be recognizing and authorizing marriages in their state.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And you complain about me creating arguments you didn't make?  

I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed.  I would like you to admit that the bill says nothing at all about civil unions.  I would like you to realize that I've been saying since you started this argument about the bill that the only thing that would change is the way marriage is entered into, and you are the one who has argued that isn't true.  I'm not looking for you to admit your anti-homosexual bigotry.  You can accept that about yourself or not. 

I'm not making any silly claims about Alabama running homosexuals out of the state and have not 'pretended that is what I'm hearing you say'.  I've been pretty clear about what I'm reading from you, I've quoted you on numerous occasions saying things you insist you did not say, I've quoted the bill in contention to support my points while you continue to do nothing but spout completely unsubstantiated opinion.  

You provided a definition for sanction which contradicts your claim.  The state of Alabama would continue to permit marriages to be entered into under SB377.  The state of Alabama would approve of marriages, in the sense of consenting or confirming the marriages.  Perhaps all your talk of sanctioning is based on approval in the moral sense, although why you would think the state is making a moral judgement by licensing a marriage but not doing so if instead a marriage contract is approved and filed is beyond me.

I do not accept your straw men nor your lies.  I will continue to point out what I see as errors as long as I feel the desire to.  You can continue to lie, show an amazing degree of hypocrisy, and use your own personal meanings for words, all while providing no evidence to support your claims, if that's what you want.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



We can keep on and on with the irrelevant examples if you like, I've got nothing else to do. It's not going to change the fact that Alabama will not be sanctioning marriages, but if you just want to argue and have me stomp your ass, we can do that. 

Now to shoot down this latest strawman... the state certainly DOES license your vehicle... what do you think that rectangular thing on the bumper with the numbers  and decal is? Registration does not authorize your car to be driven legally, you have several other things you must also comply with, including proof of insurance and a driver's license. The driver's license is a specific state sanction of your right to operate a motor vehicle.


----------



## Boss (Oct 22, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed.



I've never claimed people wouldn't be getting legal civil marriages in Alabama. I used to get this same complaint all the time when I debated civil unions reform. People somehow interpret that as the state "doing away with civil marriage" and it's not. I carefully laid out my argument for how things wouldn't change with regard to the various laws concerning marital rights, that it would simply be a change in what the state officially called it... instead of marriage, it's a civil union. Marriage is returned to the people and churches where it belongs.  I would post this over and over, and the same idiots would line up to hoot me down with _"that's ridiculous, no one is going to do away with civil marriages... good luck with that!" 
_
So we have the same exact thing happening here. I am saying the State is going to change from issuing a license (official sanction) to administering a contract (clerical action). And for some weird and bizarre reason, you are interpreting me to be saying "do away with civil marriages."  I don't know how to overcome your stubborn stupidity on this, if you're just not going to listen to what I am saying, I can't do anything about that. If you're going to create shit that I never argued and try to win that argument, you'll have to do that without my help.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed.
> ...



If the state is changing the name from marriage to civil union, they are not getting legal civil marriages, they are getting legal civil unions.  Ignoring the fact that the bill says literally nothing about civil unions and in fact mentions marriage many times, isn't this the very pointlessness you've complained about?  Why change the name from marriage to civil union if they are still considered marriages?

Of course, since the bill doesn't say anything at all about changing the name from marriage to civil union, doesn't mention civil unions at all, repeatedly explains how marriage will remain the same, this argument is really about your fantasy.

I am reading what you are saying.  You have said, multiple times, that there would be no civil marriage, instead there would be civil unions.  Despite that you also claim that there would be no end to civil marriage.  So, civil marriage would remain at the same time civil marriage would change to civil union.  You contradict yourself so blatantly it's hard to accept your argument as sincere.  

Changing from marriage to civil union IS getting rid of civil marriage.  It gets rid of civil marriage and replaces it with civil union, kind of like how the bill would get rid of marriage licenses and replace them with contracts of marriage.  Does it seem odd to you, claiming a change in name in one case is a huge adjustment to marriage while in the other the change in name has no effect at all?


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



How many times do I have to address this before it penetrates your hard head? This is the THIRD time I have explained to you that the bill HAS TO comply with the constitution, federal law, the SCOTUS ruling, and about 1,500 various and sundry connections to other laws covering a thing described consistently as "marriage." So how are they supposed to legally address all of those but not use the word "marriage?" Of course it mentions marriage many times, of course it doesn't say "civil unions" instead. This has not a damn thing to do with the intent and purpose of the bill itself. 

It also is not about changing the name. As I have repeatedly argued, it is about changing the relationship of the state with marriage. Removing them from an official capacity of sanctioning the action and establishing the state in the role of administrator only. 



> I am reading what you are saying.  You have said, multiple times, that there would be no civil marriage, instead there would be civil unions.  Despite that you also claim that there would be no end to civil marriage.  So, civil marriage would remain at the same time civil marriage would change to civil union.  You contradict yourself so blatantly it's hard to accept your argument as sincere.



Well okay, if I said that, I made a mistake. There will still be civil marriages just like there were civil marriages before Alabama was a state, before the US was a country. People will still get married and have weddings. The state will no longer be sanctioning marriage. 



> Changing from marriage to civil union IS getting rid of civil marriage.  It gets rid of civil marriage and replaces it with civil union, kind of like how the bill would get rid of marriage licenses and replace them with contracts of marriage.  Does it seem odd to you, claiming a change in name in one case is a huge adjustment to marriage while in the other the change in name has no effect at all?



No, it's not. A marriage is a form of civil union. You've said virtually the same thing except you used the word "contract" in place of "civil union" which has the same meaning in legal context. No one is talking about "getting rid" of anything except for you. Alabama is attempting to remove the state as a party to the action of whatever the hell is going to be redefined as marriage in this country. That is the intent and purpose of the bill and what it seeks to accomplish.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Or, exactly as SB377 actually says; a contract of marriage is a record of marriage. And all your 'civil union' nonsense is imaginary jibber jabber that is mentioned no where in the bill.

Remember, Boss......*you don't actually have a clue how the law works.* And are just making up your claims as you go along.



> It also is not about changing the name. As I have repeatedly argued, it is about changing the relationship of the state with marriage. Removing them from an official capacity of sanctioning the action and establishing the state in the role of administrator only.



SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning'. That's you citing yourself again. Which is meaningless.

Under SB377 the State still authorizes marriage in Alabama. It still records marriage in Alabama. It still recognizes marriage. No other marriage law is changed. No benefit is lost.

*You simply have no idea what you're talking about.*



> Well okay, if I said that, I made a mistake. There will still be civil marriages just like there were civil marriages before Alabama was a state, before the US was a country. People will still get married and have weddings. The state will no longer be sanctioning marriage.



So you said there would be no marriage law. And then backpedalled. You insisted there would be no marriages. And then backpedalled. You insisted it the Alabama law was 'Killing Homosexual marriage. And then backpedalled.
*
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.*

And the State is still legally authorizing marriages, recognizing them, enforcing marriage laws, and recording such marriages. Meaning that the State isn't removed from marriages. With SB377 making exactly zero mention of 'sanctioning' anything. Nor did the law SB377 replaces.

There is nothing you got right.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Now I have to teach you what "hold" means? 

*hold*

_1 a :*to have possession* or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>_​
Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, Boss doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He claimed that there would be no marriage law at all......and backpedalled. He insisted there would be no marriage....and backpedalled. The entire premise of his 'killing homosexual marriage' nonsense was that the new law would remove all State benefits of marriage. SB377 does no such thing.

And now he's babbling about 'holding'....and still doesn't understand what the term means. The contract of marriage is a record of marriage recorded at the Vital Statistics Office. Says who? Says SB377:



			
				Alabama SB377 said:
			
		

> to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics;
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



The idea that Alabama wouldn't recognize marriage under SB377 is pure nonsense. The idea that Alabama wouldn't hold records of marriages performed under SB377 is pure nonsense.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


More Boss derangement syndrome. 

Here's the state of Alabama recognizing marriages in their state as legal...

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county *and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage*.​


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


They'll be sanctioning marriages according to the definition you provided earlier. And no, registration is not a license. The tag on my plate is also not a license. My license to drive has nothing to do with my car's registration. Having my car registered means it's legally allowed to be driven on public roads by a licensed driver with my approval. My driver's license permits me to drive any legally registered non-commercial vehicle with the owner's approval.


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Thank you. 

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it. 

You need to take your meds.


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Correct, and if they did not say this, what would that mean from a legal standpoint? Couldn't the new law be challenged that it violated federal law regarding the recording of legal marriages? 

This is an administrative duty they are obligated to perform. This simply doesn't mean they sanction or approve of the marriage in any way.


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, they will not be sanctioning marriages. Again, you are conflating the administrative obligation they have to record marriages with the act of authorizing and sanctioning through a license. 

Your car tag is also known as a "license plate" and it signifies that your vehicle is registered with the state and you've paid your ad valorem taxes. This does not authorize your car to be driven by anyone. In some states, your car may need to pass an inspection. Your car will need to have insurance. It can't have broken headlights or taillights. It can't be a threat to public safety. It has to have working seat belts. Most importantly, it requires a licensed driver. This is a very bad analogy to present for something that does not require state sanctioning.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nah, you're just fucking deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.  

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You can't think beyond your own shadow, can you? Nothing obligates them to take possession of marriage contracts. So no, they don't have to say that. They choose to because they still recognize marriages in their state as legal marriages, just as they did before.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's the definition you gave...

*sanc·tion* - official permission or approval for an action.

Alabama would be giving permission to marry to couples who qualify for marriage. If a couple doesn't qualify, the state does not accept their marriage contract and they are not married in the eyes of the state.



Boss said:


> Your car tag is also known as a "license plate" and it signifies that your vehicle is registered with the state and you've paid your ad valorem taxes. This does not authorize your car to be driven by anyone. In some states, your car may need to pass an inspection. Your car will need to have insurance. It can't have broken headlights or taillights. It can't be a threat to public safety. It has to have working seat belts. Most importantly, it requires a licensed driver. This is a very bad analogy to present for something that does not require state sanctioning.


Fair point, I concede my analogy doesn't apply.


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Alabama would be giving permission to marry to couples who qualify for marriage.



No they aren't giving permission, that is the purpose of removing the sanction. You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right. 



> If a couple doesn't qualify, the state does not accept their marriage contract and they are not married in the eyes of the state.



No, if a couple does not qualify, they aren't administered a contract. This is also why the status of the contract has to be duly recorded, so as to prevent multiple contracts of this kind. This is part of the administrative aspect of the contract regarding civil domestic partnership, formerly known as "marriage." None of it has to do with the State sanctioning or endorsing the contract. 

Let me make it clear again... The State of Alabama in no way endorses, condones, supports or sanctions whatever personal intimate arrangement you have regarding this contract. It is not responsible or liable for whatever you assume the contract is supposed to mean. What you choose to do with the contract after they have administered it, is your business.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I believe Faun said the state would hold the marriage contracts.


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Administrative obligation they are required to do and have done for ...since they were a state!


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

I said the state will be holding the *"marriage contracts,"* not "*hold marriage."*

You're fucking deranged.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Alabama would be giving permission to marry to couples who qualify for marriage.
> ...


Of course they're giving permission. If a couple who doesn't qualify for marriage, the state will not accept their marriage contract. Otherwise, anyone could marry anyone, regardless of consent.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Where is it written they are obligated to accept marriage contracts? The state doesn't have to be involved in marriages at all, if they so chose.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> No they aren't giving permission, that is the purpose of removing the sanction. You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.



Only, you do need state permission to legally marry.  If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?

Your fundamental right comment is also clearly wrong by your own definitions.  In every state a couple must obtain a marriage license in order to enter a civil marriage.  By your definitions that is state permission, even if you don't think it would be under SB377.  So, even as a fundamental right, state permission is required.  *As I've said before, I don't like the court ruling that civil marriage is a fundamental right, which is what they have in effect done in multiple rulings.

I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm.  That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



An administrative duty they have to perform as a function of fucking state, dumbass!  

Holding the contract has nothing to do with sanctioning the relationship. They do not hold the relationship. They have no part in the relationship. They don't approve or disapprove of the relationship. What part of this are you having a problem with, goofball?


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Only, you do need state permission to legally marry. If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?



Are you now going to pervert the conversation into a discussion of the word "permission" ...really? 

Handing you a form that you and your gay lover can fill out and obtain a document to have your pairing recorded for vital statistics and so you don't go contracting with another party... making sure you are of legal age and meet the criteria for the contract... is NOT _"giving you permission"_ for anything. It is an _*administrative duty*_ of the state and has been a duty of the state forever. 

Why do you idiotically think the State of Alabama has to give you permission to exercise a fundamental constitutional right?


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm. That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.



You are giving an example of where *we've decided* to require state permission! 

I ask you, where does it say that Alabama *HAS* to give you permission?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm. That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.
> ...



What are you talking about?  You said : 


Boss said:


> You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.



I pointed out that if you want to get a civil marriage, you do have to obtain the state's permission.  I then provided an example of another fundamental right that requires state permission.  In both cases it was to show that fundamental rights sometimes require state permission.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Only, you do need state permission to legally marry. If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?
> ...



Why do you idiotically go on about not needing permission to exercise a fundamental right after repeatedly saying that licensing marriage is the state sanctioning marriage, which is defined as official permission?  So in every state in the country official permission is required to legally marry, but no state must give permission to marry?

Your contradictions are mind-boggling.  

And as I've said multiple times now, I don't like the idea of civil marriage as a fundamental right, but that's in effect what the USSC has given us.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Fundamental rights do not require state permission unless we collectively decide that they can. We don't have to have firearm registration. Domestic partnerships are going to happen and the state has to document them for millions of reasons. Our state is on the horizon of change. We are going to divorce the state from marriage. We'll administer your contracts, we'll even call it whatever in needs to be called in order to clarify compliance with the law. But the State of Alabama is not going to be sanctioning any marriages.


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Too funny.

First you said they hold nothing.

Then I had to teach you what "hold" means.

Then you tried claiming I said they would hold marriage, which I didn't say.

Now you finally accept they will be holding marriage contracts.

You sure did put up a fight to finally acknowledge I was right about them holding marriage contracts.

That aside, you're still wrong about them sanctioning marriage in your state. They do not have to accept any marriage contracts. They do not have to perform that administrative act at all. They could leave marriage entirely up to the people and stay out of marriage completely. Instead, they chose to continue recognizing marriages just as they have always done. Only now, they will no longer require their judges of probate to issue licenses.  That's all that law would change. And they've proposed that change to avoid having a Kim Davis in your state.

And yes, they will be approving/disapproving marriages. They will not accept marriage contracts from people who don't qualify to be married because they don't approve of all marriages. For example, if some adult guy shows up at the courthouse to marry a 4 year old, they don't approve of such a marriage and will not accept their marriage contract. That isba marriage they would not recognize as a legal marriage. On the flip side, if two men show up at the courthouse to marry each other, theirs is a marriage they approve of and would recognize as a legal marriage, so such a couple's marriage contract would be accepted and held by the state.

As far as your nonsense about them not "holding the relationship," that is a strawman -- they've never "held the relationship." They held the marriage license. Since they propose to use marriage contracts instead of marriage licenses,  they will hold onto the contract instead of a license.


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Only, you do need state permission to legally marry. If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?
> ...


Same reason people have to qualify for permission to legally obtain a firearm even though that's a Constitutional right. Because not everyone qualifies. There are restrictions on rights.


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are fucking deranged. Alabama did not propose divorcing themselves from marriage or viewing married couples as "domestic partners." You're making that shit up out of whole cloth because the legalization of gay marriage is eating you alive. 

Where Alabama was issuing and administering marriage licenses, they would instead administrator marriage contracts should that legislation ever pass. If they were actually divorcing themselves from marriage, as you idiotically believe, they wouldn't even administer marriage contracts.

And nowhere in the proposed  law does it refer to "domestic partnerships." You're making that up because it's killing you that your state will recognize gay marriages. The bill clearly refers to such couples as "married."


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where Alabama was issuing and administering marriage licenses, they would instead administrator marriage contracts should that legislation ever pass. If they were actually divorcing themselves from marriage, as you idiotically believe, they wouldn't even administer marriage contracts.



No, they can't do that because it's against the law. They have to record vital statistics. They have to administer contract law. What they DON'T have to do is sanction marriage, and that's what they will not be doing anymore, WHEN the legislation passes next session. 



Faun said:


> And nowhere in the proposed law does it refer to "domestic partnerships." You're making that up because it's killing you that your state will recognize gay marriages. The bill clearly refers to such couples as "married."



It doesn't have to say it in the bill. The bill has to address the numerous issues regarding what is already established on the books as "marriage" in the state of Alabama. It has to conform to the recent SCOTUS ruling and cannot violate equal protection. It has to stipulate that the change does not effect contract of marriage between individuals or any rights they may have as a couple. 

It's not killing me that my state will recognize gay marriages because they won't be recognizing gay marriages in a sanctioning capacity. They are mandated by law to recognize them administratively.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Same reason people have to qualify for permission to legally obtain a firearm even though that's a Constitutional right. Because not everyone qualifies. There are restrictions on rights.



There is no restrictions on fundamental rights unless we put them there. We are not obligated to put them there. The State of Alabama does not need to give you permission to get married. I'm sorry that you think you live in a communist or Muslim country where the State gives you permission for things, but that's not the system we have here in the US. 

You can get married without anything from the state. You can get a contract of marriage from the state and not get married. You can not get a contract and not get married but live together a certain time and legally, you are married regardless of the state's feelings. 

In order to have a fully-legal civil marriage, you will need to have a contract administered by the state in accordance with the numerous criteria for such a contract. The State is not sanctioning marriage, it is administering a legal civil contract. It doesn't hold marriage, it doesn't hold anything except the legally-required documents it must retain under the law, and has always done under the law.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> It doesn't have to say it in the bill.



And here is this entire discussion in a nutshell.

'It doesn't need to be in the bill, it's there because I say so!'


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where Alabama was issuing and administering marriage licenses, they would instead administrator marriage contracts should that legislation ever pass. If they were actually divorcing themselves from marriage, as you idiotically believe, they wouldn't even administer marriage contracts.
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

It's not in the bill because "domestic partnerships" are a figment of your butthurt imagination. The bill recognizes marriage, not "domestic partnerships," regardless of how delusional you are.



Boss said:


> It's not killing me that my state will recognize gay marriages because they won't be recognizing gay marriages in a sanctioning capacity. They are mandated by law to recognize them administratively.


After starting up multiple anti-gay and anti-gay marriage threads, you look awfully silly denying it's killing you.

Your butthurt aside ... *cite the law which requires them to administer marriage contracts?*


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Same reason people have to qualify for permission to legally obtain a firearm even though that's a Constitutional right. Because not everyone qualifies. There are restrictions on rights.
> ...


Virtually very right has some restrictions and every state has restrictions on marriage. Every state provides marriage licenses, which is tantamount to permission, that doesn't make America communist or Muslim.

As far as Alabama holding marriage, you're flaming nuts. No one is saying that but you. You keep stating how they don't hold marriages as though you're refuting someone, but no one is asserting such idiocy. What they will be holding are *marriage* contracts to observe rhe legality of *marriages* in your state -- *including gay marriages.*


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't have to say it in the bill.
> ...



No... It just doesn't have to SAY "domestic partnerships" or "civil union contracts" for that to be what it effectively is. The legislation has to cover the bases for what the bill does. This is why you find "marriage" and "marriage contract" in the text. It has to explain what the contracts do and what they replace. You are childishly taking it to mean the bill is basically a waste of time, ink and paper. 

AGAIN.. I have no problem with your misconceptions about the bill. If you want to believe I am wrong and you are right, that's entirely your prerogative. If you don't think the bill changes anything, that's fine too. In fact, I like it being that way. I would much rather have the kooky left laughing this off as something pointless and meaningless, than to have them riled up and angry over some perception of unconstitutionality. 

I honestly don't understand why this thread is going on for pages and pages about this. You're okay with it, I'm okay with it, but for some reason, we're still bickering...  

In a way, don't you think that's a little sad?


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Virtually very right has some restrictions and every state has restrictions on marriage. Every state provides marriage licenses, which is tantamount to permission, that doesn't make America communist or Muslim.



But Alabama is NOT going to issue licenses.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> As far as Alabama holding marriage, you're flaming nuts. No one is saying that but you. You keep stating how they don't hold marriages as though you're refuting someone, but no one is asserting such idiocy. What they will be holding are *marriage* contracts to observe rhe legality of *marriages* in your state -- *including gay marriages.*



No, they will be holding legal documents in the filing cabinets. What you did with your copy of the document, the state has no idea. You could have rolled it up and used it as a dildo on your gay lover... the state doesn't give a shit. It's not a party to your action. All it did was give you a form to complete and administer a contract, a copy of which it is required by law to keep a record of. You think that requirement, mandated by law, means that Alabama is "sanctioning" a marriage. I think Alabama would be totally oblivious as to whether a marriage actually occurred. I don't even know that it would be constitutional for the state to require notification that a marriage service had been conducted. What you choose to do with your contract once the state administers it, is entirely up to you.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Other than the issuance of a license, what difference would there be in marriages before and after the bill?

Is a license the only difference between a marriage and a civil union or a domestic partnership?

You do realize that there are marriages recognized by the state of Alabama that were not licensed, yes?  Are they not actually marriages?

We're arguing because you keep making things up, moving goalposts, and changing your claims.  Oh, and doing so without ever actually citing actual evidence.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually very right has some restrictions and every state has restrictions on marriage. Every state provides marriage licenses, which is tantamount to permission, that doesn't make America communist or Muslim.
> ...


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually very right has some restrictions and every state has restrictions on marriage. Every state provides marriage licenses, which is tantamount to permission, that doesn't make America communist or Muslim.
> ...


That remains to be seen. As of now, they still do. That is tantamount to permission which you idiotically described a communism.  

Guess that means you live in a communist state, huh?


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as Alabama holding marriage, you're flaming nuts. No one is saying that but you. You keep stating how they don't hold marriages as though you're refuting someone, but no one is asserting such idiocy. What they will be holding are *marriage* contracts to observe rhe legality of *marriages* in your state -- *including gay marriages.*
> ...


Your sick perverted fantasies aside, you are fucking deranged.

Your idiocy that, _"Alabama_ _would be totally oblivious as to whether a marriage actually occurred,"_ is perhaps the dumbest comment you've made yet; and you've had some doozies.

You flaming rightard ... the marriage is recognized by the state as a legal marriage, *the moment the judge of probate accepts the contract of marriage.* How on Earth could the state not know you're married when a requirement for getting married in Alabama includes submitting a contract of marriage for the judge of probate to record???

You really have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about. You're completely butthurt over gay marriage bans being ruled unconstitutional and you're saying complete and utter nonsense, totally against reality, to buffer your delusional belief that gay marriages won't be recognized in Alabama.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> That is tantamount to permission which you idiotically described a communism.



You're  right, it's not communism it's serfdom. 

Licensing IS tantamount to permission or sanction, that is why Alabama is passing the law. 

If it is a fundamental constitutional right, Alabama does not need to sanction it, license it, authorize it or sanctify it. They can provide functional administration of contracts and documents and record vital statistics without endorsing or condoning marital relationships.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Well.. a requirement in Alabama to be a brain surgeon is to graduate high school. Not everyone who graduates high school is a brain surgeon. Alabama doesn't presume they are a brain surgeon because graduating high school is a requirement for being a brain surgeon. 

And it seems that you've somehow bestowed upon the State of Alabama the humanistic attribute of contemplation, as if the entire State stops to reflect on why Jim and Joe are obtaining a contractual document and collectively assume that they are getting gay married!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > That is tantamount to permission which you idiotically described a communism.
> ...



Licensing marriages is serfdom?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You think there is some question whether a couple is getting married when they submit their marriage contract?  WTF?

And is seems that you've somehow bestowed upon the State of Alabama the humanistic attribute of endorsement, as if the entire State stops to reflect on Jim and Joe's potential marriage and collectively decide it is behind the union!  

Contemplation.    Yeah, there is a lot of contemplation involved in deciding that a submitted marriage contract means a couple is applying to get married.


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > That is tantamount to permission which you idiotically described a communism.
> ...


It's not serfdom either. You truly are fucking deranged.

But you are right when you say Alabama doesn’t need to sanction marriage. They could stay out of marriages entirely. They choose not to do that in the law they proposed. They chose to recognize the legality of marriages in their state by recording marriages and holding onto marriage contracts.


----------



## Faun (Oct 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Alabama recognizes physicians by their license to practice medicine. High school graduates without such a license are not recognized by Alabama as physicians.

See how this works?

The state of Alabama, if they pass that law, requires couples to submit a marriage contract to a judge of probate; who then records the marriage contract before filing it with the Department of Public Health. If the couple is eligible to be married and the marriage contract is in accordance with the law, the state approves of the marriage and accepts the marriage contract. They recognize those marriages as legally binding marriages under their laws, which will all be the same as before except they will no longer deal with marriage licenses. For couples who don't qualify to be married, the state does not approve of their marriage, rejects their marriage contract, and does not recognize them as being legally married according to Alabama state law.

See how this works?


----------



## Boss (Oct 25, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, requiring authority to give you permission to exercise your rights is. Pay attention.


----------



## Boss (Oct 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Alabama recognizes physicians by their license to practice medicine. High school graduates without such a license are not recognized by Alabama as physicians.
> 
> See how this works?



Nope, don't see it.  Here is what you said: 
_How on Earth could the state not know you're married when *a requirement for* getting married in Alabama *includes* submitting a contract of marriage for the judge of probate to record?_

How on Earth could the state not know you're a brain surgeon when a requirement for being a brain surgeon includes graduating high school?  The same answer applies to both... the fact that you have taken a step toward something doesn't mean you've achieved it. The State makes no assumptions for two reasons... 1) They are not a contemplative entity. 2) They're not abject morons. 



Faun said:


> If the couple is eligible to be married and the marriage contract is in accordance with the law, the state approves of the marriage and accepts the marriage contract.



The State does not *have to* approve a fundamental constitutional right. The State simply ensures the parameters required for such a contract is met. With a license, they are explicitly giving approval. One is an administrative function, the other is state sanctioning. If you're too stupid to understand this, I am sorry.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



A license, being a method by which authority gives permission to marry......


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Alabama recognizes physicians by their license to practice medicine. High school graduates without such a license are not recognized by Alabama as physicians.
> ...



Are there any other things which require graduating high school?  Are there any other things which require submitting a contract of marriage?  See the difference?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually very right has some restrictions and every state has restrictions on marriage. Every state provides marriage licenses, which is tantamount to permission, that doesn't make America communist or Muslim.
> ...


Yeah...I love it.....don't give licenses to anyone.  Totally equal.


----------



## Faun (Oct 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, it's not. It's like you have your own special definition for words.


----------



## Faun (Oct 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Alabama recognizes physicians by their license to practice medicine. High school graduates without such a license are not recognized by Alabama as physicians.
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

You are sooo fucking deranged, it's scary. 

The state recognizes you're a physician *because they have a record of your medical licence on file.* The state recognizes your married *because they have your marriage contract on file. *

This isn't really hard to follow.

As far as rights, of course the state can, and does have the authority to approve certain rights by verifying people actually qualify for such rights. If an individual feels they are wrongfully being denied their rights, they can seek redress from our judicial system. States' authority to verify a couple's right to marry has never been an issue. Making sure adults don't marry children, don't marry animals, until recently,  don't marry if they're the same gender, etc... has always been in a constitutional barrier of rights.


----------



## Boss (Oct 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> state..does have the authority to approve certain rights



Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And that's it exactly. Boss's definitions are completely self invented. He hangs his argument on 'sanctioning' of marriage by the State, which he's defined as 'authorizing'.

Until it was shown that SB377 required that people being married be legally authorized by the State of Alabama to do so. 

Then suddenly Boss' definition of sanctioning morphed, completely omitting the word 'authorize'. 

Even Boss doesn't believe in Boss' bullshit.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> You think that requirement, mandated by law, means that Alabama is "sanctioning" a marriage. I think Alabama would be totally oblivious as to whether a marriage actually occurred.



Of course you think that way....*as you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.* You've never even read SB377, the very bill you claim to be describing. A fact that an even casual reading of SB377 demonstrates elegantly:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph E said:
			
		

> The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
> record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
> Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



The State of Alabama would obviously be aware of every marriage conducted by contract as the contracts constitution a legal record of marriage. A record which is transmitted to and recorded by the Office of Vital Statistics.

But per you, Alabama would be oblivious to the fact that a marriage had occured? That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Remember, you're utterly clueless. You've never read SB377. You have no idea what the bill says says. You don't know the first thing about contract law. And you're actively ignoring any citation of the actual bill.

These handicaps tend to reduce the usefulness of your comments on the topic.


----------



## Faun (Oct 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > state..does have the authority to approve certain rights
> ...


Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do. 

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.  

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated? 

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted.  The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid.  Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right.  Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right. 

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles. 

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds. 

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Fundamental rights, like any right, can have restrictions.

Now ya know.


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are fucking deranged. Drinking and driving is not a right.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your last paragraph appears correct, the courts decision made same sex sibling marriage legal in Iowa. 

A few years ago that would have been considered reprehensible, now it's been legal for six years. How do you now take away that right without a State presenting a Compelling interest to deny argument that meets the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Who knows why a pervert like you can't stop talking about incest, but regardless of how many times you repeat that drivel, Iowa is still not allowing any immediate family members to marry, regardless of gender.

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Of course it is IOWA that gets to define what is too closely related. And thats defined in Iowa statute 595 as backed up by the link in my previous post and this:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 26, 2015)

The discussion about the Alabama bill is moot. It hasn't passed and it is unlikely to.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 26, 2015)

So Pops, when are you filing in Iowa? Come on bloviator, put your money where your mind is...incest.


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Who knows why this doesn't sink in to a pervert like you, but again .... no matter how many times you reference that section, Iowa still does not allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


Apparently iowa doesn't agree with you as a same sex sibling marriage is not considered void.


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa doesn't agree with me? I'm posting Iowa's own marriage application instructions. You're so fucked in your perverted head, you're not claiming Iowa doesn't agree with me; you're actually claiming Iowa doesn't agree with themselces.  Iowa is the one saying they don't allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender. If anything, I agree with them.

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​
Meanwhile, you keep referencing an antiquated law which was altered due to Supreme Court rulings, which is obviously not yet updated to reflect the changes because of those rulings. You've even been shown the replacement bill which is currently on the docket.

And of course Iowa doesn't allow any close family marriages. Even more evidence of that is that there hasn't been a single such marriage in the six years since their Supreme Court nullified bans on same-sex marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes you are wrong. And no, the State of Iowa does not agree with you.

You can cite the Polk County registrars all you want. The state of Iowa is the controlling law in the state, and from the state law:

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

See any same sex? Does this contain anything that says same sex couples are prohibited whether family or not?

They don't? Then unless you can cite the IOWA SUPREME COURT removing the above, your bluff was called and you lost......AGAIN!

Then of course the prestigious National Association of District attorney's back that up:

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

See page 23 - 24 Void Marriage


But then maybe you don't know what "Void Marriage" is?

From Wikipedia:


A *void marriage* is a *marriage *which is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A *void marriage* is "one that is *void* and invalid from its beginning. It is as though the *marriage* never existed and it requires no formality to terminate.

Looks like you got some work to do Sparky


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Furthermore, riddle me this... 

What about 15 years from now, a gay man comes forth with his dilemma... He is gay married to his gay lover but he has recently grown to discover he is at least partially heterosexual because he is in love with a heterosexual woman now. She is in love with him as well, but they can't get married because he is already gay married. He doesn't want  to get a divorce from his gay partner, they still love each other... he just wants to have a traditional marriage as well...  why should we discriminate against him because he is gay?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That was pretty childish.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else.  That was true before the legalization of same sex marriage and remains true.  Your post only makes sense if same sex marriage is considered entirely different than opposite sex marriage, instead of both being marriage.

What I wonder is whether you understand this and created that hypothetical as a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing, or if you really can't see that both same and opposite marriages are legally still marriages.


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

Can ya be any more retarded?

Why would you think that's Polk County? Can you not read the first line of their marriage application instructions??

*STATE OF IOWA*​
What about this line...

*IOWA LAW provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are .... not closely related by blood or first cousins*​
Nope, nothing about Polk County in there either. *Nowhere in the state can close family members marry. *

And again... it really doesn't matter how many times you repeat that section, as you've been shown... Iowa doesn't let any close members marry regardless of gender.

That's why not single such marriage in 6 years.

Oh... and...


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



*One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else. *

Why not? Because you don't like it? Because it disrupts your sense of tradition? What is your reasoning for not allowing multi-partner marriages? Especially in the scenario I laid out, where the man is married but not traditionally married? Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because you're a dishonest fuck, I will post Iowa 595.19. The controlling legislation:

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

This is the first line again:

1. Marriages between the *following* persons who are related by
blood are void:

Then a very long list of THE FOLLOWING none of which are closely relate same sex. Hmmmmm

And then we have the National Association of District Attorney's that seem to say I am right.

Sucks to be you, all alone in your dishonesty.

WOW, imagine that, I proved you wrong again.

Getting to be a habit watching you lose so often.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Didn't one of the Justices ask this, and I paraphrase:

If steve loves Jill and Steve loves Jim, why is it Steve can Marry Jill but not Jim?

So, why can't he Marry both? If it was the Justices question afterall

Are your opponents in this actually calling the person who cast the deciding vote........

Childish?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage.  As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else.  Why not?  That's the law.

If someone wants to get the law changed, fine.  I was answering your silly hypothetical which tries to treat same sex marriage as somehow legally different from opposite sex marriage, as though one should be permitted to have both a same sex and opposite sex marriage simultaneously.  Clearly that is not the way the law works.

I don't have a problem with polygamy.  It is not current marriage law, however, and does not fit with current marriage law.

In your scenario, the man is married.  You may want to call it not traditionally married, but that is not a legal distinction.  He is being denied a second marriage simultaneous with his current marriage, the same as any other married persons.


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oh, nooo's, pops is gettin' all uppity. lol

Is this your way of admitting what I posted was about the entire state of Iowa and not just Polk County? 

You can post it all you want... Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry each other regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​
And the NDAA doesn't even help you. You're referencing a list of incestuous statutes. Says so on the link you posted. You just can't stop fantasizing about incest, can you, perv23?

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to find even one single close-family marriage that took place in Iowa in the last 6 years.... you can't because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage. As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else. Why not? That's the law.



Well we're not talking about "as of this moment" or what the law currently is, are we? 

I am asking you a direct question and you're not answering me directly. 
Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> You can post it all you want... Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry each other regardless of gender...



Why not? It's not harming you or your marriage is it? Why do you want to deny people their fundamental rights to marriage?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage. As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else. Why not? That's the law.
> ...



Because current marriage law doesn't work with polygamy.  If new law is written which covers polygamous relationships I have no problem with it.  As I already said.


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> In your scenario, the man is married. You may want to call it not traditionally married, but that is not a legal distinction. He is being denied a second marriage simultaneous with his current marriage, the same as any other married persons.



But clearly you can understand that a traditional marriage is not the same as a gay marriage. Why should he be deprived of the benefits of a traditional marital relationship with the person he loves heterosexually, just because he has a homosexual-based marriage with a same-sex partner? Are we discriminating against him for being gay? Are we going to forbid him from being heterosexual? 

And what is your basis for this? Your moral judgement of right and wrong? Traditions? The way things have always been before?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage. As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else. Why not? That's the law.
> ...



Oh, unlike you, I don't look at it as being denied a traditional marriage because he has a gay marriage.  I consider it being denied a second marriage while he is still in a first marriage.  That is also the way the law sees it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Because current marriage law *doesn't work with* polygamy.



Explain.


----------



## skye (Oct 26, 2015)

it's hard to condemn  a homo when you have  a loved one who is a  homo...you know....somewhere on this planet...on some country out there...and you love him

Bloody hell ...me doesn't like it...but me has to be good  ..me does not want to hurt him and all that shit...see.... I don't want to hurt him.....



what a life this is


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > In your scenario, the man is married. You may want to call it not traditionally married, but that is not a legal distinction. He is being denied a second marriage simultaneous with his current marriage, the same as any other married persons.
> ...



They are both marriages.

He is not denied the benefits of a traditional marital relationship.  He is being denied the ability to have two marriages simultaneously.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Because current marriage law *doesn't work with* polygamy.
> ...



Child custody, power of attorney, inheritance, tax filing, there are any number of ways in which current marriage law does not cover polygamous marriage.


----------



## skye (Oct 26, 2015)

because

me could hurt him so much...so easily ...so much

omg

what a life this is


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again... if we are arguing what the law currently says and is, then I guess you win that argument.  

I thought we were arguing about this hypothetical case and what your justification would be in denying him the right to marry the person he loves? I already know "how you look at it" ...you don't think he can have a second marriage cuz he already gotz one and datz what da law sez. 

Men can't fuck each other in the ass... that's what the law said.  Once.
Men can't marry men.... that's what the law said. Once.


----------



## skye (Oct 26, 2015)

why GOD makes me so strong....and lets me know I can hurt  that way.... deviants.... so much...why why...


why ...

then stops me


----------



## Boss (Oct 26, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It didn't cover same sex marriage either until we changed the law.


----------



## skye (Oct 26, 2015)

My life is all Karma

Karma

In this life I have to accept or respect homos

Lord have mercy on me


----------



## skye (Oct 26, 2015)

horrible thing ....Horrible ................hate it...

do not like deviants ok kill me


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And still you ignore the law. Line one clearly state that the FOLLOWING......

No same sex couples included. 

And you have failed entirely.  

But then, you are an incest obsessed nutjob anyway.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So your link takes me to gmdsolutions. Not exactly a govermental branch of the iowa government, is it?

No wonder you dance so much. 

Mine quoted the entire controlling law, which the corporation is not obligated to include when their sales person contracts with the county. 

Nice dodge though. 

While we are at it. Please supply a link to the proposed legislation you claim exists that would change Iowa 595 to exclude same sex family members the right to Marry. 

BOOM

You lose yet again

It's like clockwork for you!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Child custody? The child still has only two parents, right. Not tough at all

Power of attorney? Inheritance?  Pre nups are legal binding contracts. Tax filing?  The IRS and the Congress can address those any way they want. The tax code is changed often to fit many changes already. 

And, the 14th amendment trumps all those concerns anyway.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 27, 2015)

Pops...I'm sure the dozens of siblings wanting to civilly marry in Alabama thank you for your strong advocacy for their right to do so. Have any of them hired you yet?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pops...I'm sure the dozens of siblings wanting to civilly marry in Alabama thank you for your strong advocacy for their right to do so. Have any of them hired you yet?



What's the downside Wytch. Lower taxes? Social security survivors bennies? Unioun bennies?

You know, exactly the SAME REASON YOU WANTED TO MARRY!

Lesbians crack me up. Might be the most selfish people on the face of this planet.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pops...I'm sure the dozens of siblings wanting to civilly marry in Alabama thank you for your strong advocacy for their right to do so. Have any of them hired you yet?
> ...



How many times do I have to tell you Pops, I support your support for the people of Alabama. I'm sure the one or two sibling couples think you're the bees knees. When are you, staunch defender of sibling fuckers, going to file your case?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sibling fuckers?

You are a pervert

There are potentially 100s of millions more of them, then there are of you, and the astonishing thing, they could include lesbians. 

And since marriage does not require sex, they would Marry for the same reason as you.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2015)

skye said:


> My life is all Karma
> 
> Karma
> 
> ...


You don't have to respect us...we don't have to respect you either...but neither of us are allowed to use the law to restrict the others' civil rights.  See how that works?


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Suuure, pops. Let me know if you ever figure out you're still quoting the same law which changed because of Supreme Court rulings?



Pop23 said:


> But then, you are an incest obsessed nutjob anyway.


Project much? lol


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you can supply the link to the legislation or court order in which the change to law is stated. I am sure it contains a line by line change. 

So, provide the proof, legislation or court order and you win.

Don't, you prove you're a loser. Of course, everyone, including you, know that's a fact anyway.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

bodecea said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > My life is all Karma
> ...



Why in the hell do you think heterosexuals want your acceptance or respect?


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I keep providing the proof and you keep ignoring it. You're too committed to your perversions to accept the reality that Iowa doesn't allow any close family marriages. Even though you'll ignore it again, here it is again...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...


That's good to know.....however I would expect heterosexuals don't want me pushing to pass laws restricting their civil rights.  Or.......do you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your PROOF from a print shop in Spencer, Iowa is lame dude.

The actual LAW trumps your print shop flyer.

So, you lose again.

Thanks for allowing me to prove, once again what a miserable loser you really are.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I don't think we would really care. Do you?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You wouldn't care if laws were pushed to restrict your civil rights?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And again, I don't have any problems with polygamy, it just doesn't work with current marriage law.  If the law is changed, I wouldn't be upset about it.

However, your silliness was not 'what if the law were changed or if we ignore the law?'.  You were clearly continuing your dialogue about same sex marriage changing everything.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But same sex marriage was able to fit into existing marriage law because that law covered two participants.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Aww, how sad. Now the forum pervert is whining over who prints up Iowa's documents. 

And how is it you convince yourself you've won when you're incapable of finding even one close family marriage in Iowa in 6 years?

Iowa says they don't allow such marriages which is why there are none.

G'head, perv... this is where you declare you've won again even though Iowa doesn't allow close family members to marry regardless of gender.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



There are numerous Iowa counties found in this link.  I did not find a relevant state law to link, only some individual counties.  

state of iowa marriage license instructions at DuckDuckGo


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I came across this while looking at something else, but remembered this question of yours earlier in the thread and thought I would again reply to it.

From the USSC case Maynard v. Hill :
"
It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more

Page 125 U. S. 211

than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage."

Maynard v. Hill 125 U.S. 190 (1888)

The relevant portions begin on Page 125 U.S. 210


----------



## Skylar (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Then how do you explain the lack of all the 4 year olds getting married?

Clearly there's a part of this scenario that you're not understanding.



> If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.



Or....the court doesn't use an absolute standard. But a rational one. If there is a compelling state interest, a legitmate legislative end, and a rational reason......then restrictions can exist.

There was no such interests, ends or reasons regarding same sex marriage bans. 

But if you believe the courts have authorized marriage between 4 year olds...by all means, quote them. You'll quickly discover what the rest of us already know: you have no idea what you're talking about. 



> One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?



Or......you're once again offering us a Boss Definition, where you make up the meaning and then pretend that we and the courts are bound to whatever you imagine.

Sigh....if only reality worked that way.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Nope, cuz I think we have a majority of states to back us.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I won again. And there is no need for me to dance. Victory is mine.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Why waste your time, here is the actual law: 

Iowa Code 595

If it's been modified by the legislature or court order, please link to those. All counties can do is reference questions back to the State Authority.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Oh, traditional views of marriage. Gotta love the good ol days


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Kinda didnt work that well in Iowa.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why, based on your opinion of what kind of marriages should be legal now?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wait, you are saying that all of those various counties using the same wording for what Iowa says are the qualifications for marriage are really just sending questions to the state?


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So claims the pervert who can't find a single family marriage in 6 years, despite his delusion that it's legal.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That law's been altered. It even still reads that marriage is between a man and a woman. According to you, same-sex marriage is still banned in Iowa.

According to Iowa, same-sex marriage is allowed but marrying close family members is not.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Counties can synopsis the law anyway they wish, the State is the Controlling Authority and it is the State that created marriage law, including who is disqualified fro entering into the contract. 

The IOWA SUPREME COURT ordered that the State allow same gender couples be allowed to marry, nothing more, nothing less. 

Link to the court order that does different.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Check the law again and find a mention of sex being a requirement of a marriage contract. 

If you can't, you just admitted that you are the pervert.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Poor fool, takes the word of a printing company over the Iowa State Legislature.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As has been pointed out to you, SC rulings nullified marriage laws regarding gender.

You're the one who can't stop talking about incest, perv.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Your the one making anti 14th Amendment arguments. Kind of appears you want us back in the 50's.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll. 

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe. 

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So....you rely on being in the majority at all times.   What if that were to change in some way?


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oh look... Now the form pervert thinks that marriage applications aren't  valid because they're printed up by printing companies.

Your desperation is noted, perv.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The population would go to zero and then......

What the hells your point. 

Male/female coupling is a species necessity. Female/Female? Not so much.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It is the controlling law behind the forms that are important bug.

Youre smashed again.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Already provided. Here it again...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Nope. If it were, marriage would be limited to a man and a woman since that is what the law reads.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Counties do not put out *state documents * that do not pertain to the entire state. Seriously, perv23, what the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I said nothing about sex. Uh-oh, your dementia worsens, perv!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Link takes you to a print shop in Spensor iowa. 

Desperate?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 27, 2015)

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You must have. Incest is a sex act. Marriage requires no sex perv


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Oh I see, but print shops is Spencer Iowa do?

Got it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not according to the IOWA SUPREME COURT.

But then again, by your explanation, no marriages have been performed in
Iowa since 2009.

I guess you could clear this up by supplying a link to the ISC ruling changing those included in the prohibited list


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The one to bring up incest ... is you.  Pervert.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What if you became the minority in something besides sexuality?  For example, what if you are left-handed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of left-handed people?    That wouldn't bother you?    Or you are blue-eyed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of blue-eyed people?  That wouldn't bother you?


(Oh, why would the population go to zero?   Explain)


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...






Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Poor dipshit Faun. To lazy to check the ruling:  here it is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

Last page is all you need. It forces a change in Iowa code 595.2 only.

But because I am always helpful:

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Gee, no other changes to existing law???

Too bad the couples excluded are contained elsewhere.

Fauns dumbfuckery is now revealed completely


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


Legally, not anymore.   The government no longer discriminates based on gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Gays do what gays do


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That is your answer to my simple question?  Ok, since you really don't want to be serious and hold a serious discussion............just trolling then?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Nope, just telling it like it is.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If approved by the state, yes.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Now you're lying, perv. I never inferred no marriages have occurred in Iowa since 2009. And I could even prove many have.

Unlike you, claiming same-sex close-family marriage has been legal there since 2009 only you can't find even one such marriage.

Because there are none.

Because Iowa doesn't allow it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Of course you will supply a link that changes Iowa 595.19 that is the description for the meaning "not closely related by blood" means under Iowa statute, right?

It is the State of Iowa, not dipshit Faun, Wikipedia, dictionary.com or a print shop in Spencer, Iowa that gets that privilege. 

Good God, have you no pride? Simply supply the Court ruling or Legislation that changes iowa 595.19. It is the only two things that can change state definition.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your argument has been thoroughly and completely defeated.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Says you. Iowa says otherwise.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Link to what? Your fantisy?

Ok, we now see your fantisy. 

Point?


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, a link to Iowa's instructions for filling out a marriage application in their state.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sorry, your link takes us to a page from a print shop in Spensor Iowa. 

Here's the relevent link, to the Iowa State Law: 

Iowa Code 595

You've been, once again


BUSTED


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa's marriage instructions are approved by Iowa. You focus on who prints them up only because you're desperate. How sad, perv23.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Dude, the link doesn't take you where you think it does, it takes you to a print shop in Spensor, Iowa.

Iowa defines "not closely blood related" as, per iowa code 595.19 (not amended or changed by the Iowa judicial system):

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Which includes this gem

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

See, no same sex immediate family members included. 

You going for a record loss total?


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And you've still not explained how your "doesn't work with" is different than the "doesn't work with" arguments against gay marriage. You reeled off some things that would be effected and would have to be changed but that was also the case for gay marriage... things were effected and had to change. 

No, Monty, I have never argued that Obergefell changed the law and now allows polygamy and sibling marriage. Again, if THAT is the argument you think we're having it's no wonder you're like a dog with a bone and think you've won. I totally realize none of these things are legal and would all have to be passed into law or challenged in court. We are discussing what your argument is going to be against it when this happens (and it will happen.)  Thus far, your only argument seems to be that it's not going to happen because it's against the law and it "doesn't work." 

Of course, now you've slowly revealed that you're really okay with polygamy. And you know what else, I believe you'll be okay with sibling marriages, hebephile marriages, zoophile marriages, or whatever other perversion of marriage comes down the pike.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.

As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.

Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.

Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.

6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 27, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I know you're not just now figuring out that Sibling Marriage Defender, Pops, is simply trolling.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You seem to ask for links to things that people haven't claimed an awful lot.

I just pointed out that multiple Iowa counties have the same wording as part of the requirements for obtaining a marriage license, as though quoting from something like a statute.  It seems unlikely that they would make up marriage requirements among themselves, particularly if doing so is non-binding or illegal.

You've linked to marriage law in Iowa, but I have no idea if any other law has been passed or if the relevant sections of 595 have been adjusted since the legalization of same sex marriage.  Perhaps it has not been and there could be an issue if same sex close relations petition to be married.  The most recent iteration of 595 I have seen was from 2014.  I did not see any date from your link so I don't know when it was last updated, nor how long it might take between passage of or change to law by the legislature and updating online.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Of course you think these things.  You are a deluded twit.

I've never spoken against polygamous marriage that I can recall in a moral sense.  My only problem with polygamy is in the practicality of its application.  Many different laws about marriage would need to be changed for polygamous marriage to work.  With same sex marriage there are very few changes needed.  That you cannot see the difference is not my problem.

I would not support non-consensual marriage, whatever you may think.  You are the only one who seems to feel consent is unimportant in these discussions.  I don't expect any serious legal challenge to laws requiring humans be the participants in marriage to occur anyway, despite your histrionics.

You have argued that Obergefell has changed the law so that, if challenged, any joining which wants to gain legal marriage must get it.  They may not be legal now but, based on what you've said, if someone takes it to court they must be legalized based on Obergefell.  I have, on many occasions now, given arguments as to why your silly claims about potential forms of marriage will not be legalized.  You seem to have decided to ignore them in order to try and winnow my arguments down to an easier to argue against straw man.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of laws in which marital status plays a part.  I believe it would be far more difficult to fit polygamous marriage into those laws, that many more changes or completely new additions would need to be made, than for same sex marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I *have no idea* if any other law has been passed or if the relevant sections of 595 have been adjusted since the legalization of same sex marriage..*.Perhaps* it has not been and *there could be an issue*...so *I don't know* when it was last updated, *nor how long* it might take...



You see, Pops... Our laws and Constitution all rely upon Monty's knowledge. Nothing can be constitutional until Monty hears about it and let's us know that he knows it is constitutional. As long as he is in the dark or ignorant of things, they can't possibly be legal or constitutional. You need to get that through your thick head and understand how things are, by gawd!


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



All the same old tired nonsense. 

No one is going to support "non-consentual" marriage... that's why we'd change the definition of consent, like we've done a million times and as is the case all over the country in various states regarding various laws. We've already been through the fact that animals aren't required to give consent because they aren't constitutionally protected. Age of consent is arbitrary and has been as low as 12-years-old in THIS country. 

As for your argument against polygamy, it's even weaker. You're saying it would need to be accommodated.... okay, so what? Didn't we have to make accommodation for homosexuals? We don't disallow fundamental constitutional rights because we don't want to accommodate them or because we think it would be a pain in the ass to accommodate. 

As for Obergefell, the equal protection clause is a booger. It has redefined traditional marriage based on the ruling and it will stand as legal precedent in any future challenge. You seem to think it happened in a vacuum and won't have any effect on any future case. It's about the most ignorant and asinine viewpoint I've ever heard. But then, it's coming from you!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.

You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're  simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.

You are completely toasted dude:


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I *have no idea* if any other law has been passed or if the relevant sections of 595 have been adjusted since the legalization of same sex marriage..*.Perhaps* it has not been and *there could be an issue*...so *I don't know* when it was last updated, *nor how long* it might take...
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Which, properly translated in English means .........

WINNING


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I *have no idea* if any other law has been passed or if the relevant sections of 595 have been adjusted since the legalization of same sex marriage..*.Perhaps* it has not been and *there could be an issue*...so *I don't know* when it was last updated, *nor how long* it might take...
> ...



You have reading comprehension issues it seems.  You took a post in which I clearly admitted I do not know if the relevant laws have been adjusted since same sex marriage was legalized, that it could cause issues if they haven't been, and somehow decided that means I took a definitive stand of some sort on the constitutionality of the law.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If the laws regarding consent change then who can get married will change.  I have never argued that.  You are the one who brings up relationships in which a party involved cannot give consent.  Animals would be required to give consent to marry, as anyone who marries is required to give consent.  That's the point, you dolt : because animals can't consent and marriage requires consent, animals cannot marry.  Animals also cannot enter into contracts and marriage is a form of contract.  You're right that we've been over this all before, the problem is that you ignore the facts involved in order to push your ridiculous hypotheticals.  

Animals aren't required to give consent because they aren't constitutionally protected?  That's your own strange personal meaning coming into play again.

I have only argued that polygamy does not work with current marriage law.  It would require a great deal of adjustment or creation of entirely new law to accommodate the differences between two adult marriage and polygamy.  I have not argued that polygamy should remain banned.  I have no issue with polygamy being legalized.

I have never claimed that Obergefell happened in a vacuum or won't have any effect on any future case.  Again, that's you making things up.  What I have argued is that your doomsday predictions about pedophilia, bestiality, and whatever other possible romantic/sexual relationship you can come up with being legalized based on Obergefell is nothing but silly bloviation on your part.  If consent laws change it will not be based on Obergefell.  If animals are allowed to enter into contracts and marriage it will not be based on Obergefell.  That marriage is a fundamental right is not based on Obergefell.  You just cannot stomach the idea of same sex marriage and so throw out these extreme claims about the potential fallout of the decision.


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Animals would be required to give consent to marry, as anyone who marries is required to give consent.



Really? So the U.S. Constitution protects animals and they have rights now? How, exactly, are animals supposed to "give consent?"  It seems to me you are attempting to deny someone the fundamental rights of marriage based on what an animal cannot do and is not obligated to do under the constitution. 

Marriage required the relationship to be the union of a male and female. That was changed. Therefore, any argument you have based on what marriage traditionally HAS been, is irrelevant now. We can change what is required for marriage. This has been established.


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I have only argued that polygamy does not work with current marriage law.



But you've not explained why this matters with regard to a fundamental right to marriage. You seem to want to believe we're having an argument about what the law currently says is legal and not legal... that's a matter of public record, the laws say what they say today. There is no "argument" there.  We're discussing what the law can now be changed to in the future as a result of making marriage a fundamental right based on sexual behavior masquerading as equal protection under the 14th. 

_"Oh, sorry, that doesn't work for me..."_  is NOT going to pass constitutional muster.

And really... what actual changes, other than use of a calculator, would be involved in two spouses as opposed to one? I don't understand what "doesn't work" about it? Why can't it be accommodated like we made accommodation for the gays? Oh yeah... that's right, you are FOR polygamy!  You done knocked down that taboo!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I have only argued that polygamy does not work with current marriage law.
> ...



It's quite simple really. 

Their argument is that 

1. Tradition matters

Unless

2. It doesn't. 

And 

A.  You can't deny me my rights because you think its icky

Unless

B. They find it icky


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Only those contained on this list are void:
*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

You need to quit spamming the board and link to the legislation that changed the above. 

Or admit you're spamming the board with a link to a pamphlet from a printing company from Spencor Iowa


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Animals would be required to give consent to marry, as anyone who marries is required to give consent.
> ...



Marriage is a legal contract. Animals, children and dead people cannot sign their consent to a legal document. Animals, children and dead people cannot give consent to sex. Learn this simple fact, sheep everywhere beg you.



> Marriage required the relationship to be the union of a male and female. That was changed. Therefore, any argument you have based on what marriage traditionally HAS been, is irrelevant now. We can change what is required for marriage. This has been established.


Marriage required people to be of the same race. That was changed. Racists were as certain then of the slippery slope as you are now. 

Funny that...


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Marriage is a legal contract. Animals, children and dead people cannot sign their consent to a legal document.



Men used to couldn't fuck other men in the ass! Men used to couldn't marry men! What IS.... doesn't matter and isn't the debate here.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Seems like those in the financial planning fields are catching on to the loopholes with the iowa laws:

"The state of Iowa chose to remain silent on this question; its statute declares as void any marriage between "a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter" (and vice versa) in Iowa Code Ann. § 595.19. The court in Varnum v. Brien did not mention 595.19 or consanguinity and the legislature has not updated the statute since. As such, Iowa has seen fit to allow close same-sex relatives to marry; accordingly, an unmarried woman can marry her daughter and pass wealth to her tax free."

CPA at Law: Gay Marriage Cases Yield Estate Tax Planning Opportunities

Then they added this after Obergfell:

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Interesting read by LICENCED professionals


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I'm spamming nothing. I'm replying to your idiocy that the statute you quote is still relevant despite Supreme Court rulings affecting gender in marriages. You're under the delusion that a SC ruling can create a loophole where people can violate the law. I say you're a retard who doesn't understand the spirit of the law prevents that from occurring.

You wanna keep posting that obsolete statute? Go right ahead. Just know that every time you do, I will remind you that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender.

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is a legal contract. Animals, children and dead people cannot sign their consent to a legal document.
> ...



Black men couldn't fuck white women in the pussy. White men used to couldn't marry black women!!!

Your point?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sure dummy, I'm sure a CPA financial planning practice. (Most of which have attorneys they run thing past prior to publishing). Have a different opinion then you.......

Too bad, so sad

Seems like those in the financial planning fields are catching on to the loopholes with the iowa laws:

"The state of Iowa chose to remain silent on this question; its statute declares as void any marriage between "a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter" (and vice versa) in Iowa Code Ann. § 595.19. The court in Varnum v. Brien did not mention 595.19 or consanguinity and the legislature has not updated the statute since. As such, Iowa has seen fit to allow close same-sex relatives to marry; accordingly, an unmarried woman can marry her daughter and pass wealth to her tax free."

CPA at Law: Gay Marriage Cases Yield Estate Tax Planning Opportunities

Then they added this after Obergfell:

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Interesting read by LICENCED professionals

but of course, you know better than them, Right?

 Goes your argument - loser


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is a legal contract. Animals, children and dead people cannot sign their consent to a legal document.
> ...


Idiot, gay sex, while illegal, was consentual. Animals, children, and dead people are about those who can't consent.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry; regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Animals would be required to give consent to marry, as anyone who marries is required to give consent.
> ...



You keep making this argument as though before Obergefell, marriage was static and unchangeable.  In fact, you seem to imply that all law prior to Obergefell was static and unchangeable.

Let's try and be clear.  Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right.  Because of this any argument based on marriage being a fundamental right is not because of Obergefell.

Something being a fundamental right does not mean it is to be completely unrestricted and undefined.

You disagree with this particular change to marriage; this lifting of a previous restriction.  That does not mean that marriage was not changed prior to this ruling or that any further change in the future must be based on this decision.

Consent laws have nothing to do with Obergefell.  Those laws can and were changed prior to the ruling and likely will change again.  Any argument about age of consent or the requirement of those entering marriage being able to legally consent would therefore not be based on Obergefell.

The idea that consent is based on constitutional protection is something you appear to have made up simply to insert into this argument.

Your ridiculous attempts at trying to find some sort of constitutional crisis based on Obergefell fall well short of any kind of credibility.


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well obviously they did, Obama was born! 

You are saying :"marriage is a legal contract and children or animals can't consent to a legal contract" and completely disregarding the fact that we're not discussing what the law CURRENTLY says, but what it can be _changed_ to now.  All of those things can be changed to accommodate the sexual desires of others. Unless you can present some valid and compelling reason, you can't deny people their constitutional rights. 

Animals CAN'T sign consent, they don't have the capacity to and they aren't expected to gain that capacity in the future. The Constitution and rights don't apply to animals. What they can or can't do has nothing to do with the rights of a citizen who DOES have constitutional rights! And "children"  ??? What ARE those?  Well, we know that in the case of Planned Parenthood, they are an exploitable resource for monetary remuneration.... But in the context of age in which they can legally "consent" we're all over the board. A 13 year old girl can consent to an abortion without her parents permission.... she can't consent to marry... she can't consent to sex with someone over 18... all kinds of things her consent is prohibited for but not abortions. In some states a 16 year old can consent if they have a parent's permission... somehow their ability to consent is connected to their parent. And if they are 15 years and 11 months old, they can't consent at all. Once was a time, you could get a girl really drunk and have sex with her consent... now consent is in question.  The entire concept of "consent" is ambiguous, so any philosophical discussion surrounding an argument with it is also ambiguous.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

Why would you give two shits? Because he appears to be an attorney.

From the front page of cpaatlaw



> *Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.*
> This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners. [\quote]


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument 





> *Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.*
> This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners.



And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Let's try and be clear. Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right.



They had not established that "marriage" could be redefined to include sexual propensity. They certainly didn't establish racially-pure marriage was a fundamental right. You are all on record here as acknowledging we can restrict fundamental rights but it only seems to apply whenever YOU think it should. Meanwhile, we can deny others their constitutional rights on the basis that... hey, _the law_ says so!


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

*Let's put this to a test ...*

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find *ONE*.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try and be clear. Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right.
> ...


Who knows why you have a problem denying marriage to those who would violate the law if they were to consummate their marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link. 

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try and be clear. Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right.
> ...



It never backs up what it claims. Get ready for its dance to begin


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



^^^* watch the gay troll dance


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Back to projection, I see. 

Nah, you're just a fruit loop dingus. I can't lose until you can find two close family members of the same sex who married each other in Iowa in the last 6 years.

Until then, you're just blowin' smoke. Don't think anyone here thinks otherwise.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your the one claiming marriage requires sex, but not a single state makes that a requirement to a valid marriage contract. 

So pervert fits you well. According to your logic, marital rape should be legal. 

Watch the Perv start its dance and try to spin away from his logic. Why else's would he think, two siblings simply wanting the financial rights gays fought for would even think about having a sexual relationship. 

What a disgusting pervert you are


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I proved its legal. You got a pamphlet and we are waiting for the justification of your logic inference that marital rape should be legal. 

I've advised you many times sex is not a requirement to marriage, yet you insist it must be. 

You disgust me.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try and be clear. Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right.
> ...



Obergefell established that marriage could be redefined to include sexual propensity, did it?  It seems to me that it established that denying same sex couples access to marriage law did not serve a compelling state interest.  

You seem to think restricting rights should only apply where YOU think it should, or not at all.

You have been given reasons to deny various forms of marriage legitimacy over and over.  That you choose to dismiss the reasons given to try and make the argument against your silliness seem without merit is your own issue.

And when it comes to having a valid basis for arguments, maybe when you're willing to actually cite the relevant documents or rulings you argue about instead of avoiding doing so as though it's beneath you, you'll have some credibility.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You can't prove that though. According to the state of iowa, same sex adults don't commit incest (as disgusting as it is), according to the National Association of District Attorney's it isn't incest in Iowa either. Same finding at findlaw.com. 

I've said many times that marriage does not require sex to be valid, but you imply it MUST. You just did it again. 

Using YOUR LOGIC, no married partner can refuse sex as they consented to enter into a contract THAT REQUIRES SEX. 

So in your warped mind that makes marital rape acceptable. 

You are one sick fuck.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



'It' never backs up what it claims, huh?

Do you want me to back up the fact that the USSC had established marriage as a fundamental right prior to Obergefell?  Again?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Do you think that has a single thing to do with my argument? Go ahead, I'm the true progressive on this thread, it won't effect my argument at all


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



According to Iowa statute same sex adults can commit incest.  
Iowa Code 726

You've got a point about the marriage law if it has not yet been adjusted.  Incest law in Iowa doesn't specify opposite sex, though.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I think that based on the posts you quoted you seemed to be talking about my statement that the USSC established marriage as a fundamental right prior to Obergefell.  If you were talking about something else you should have quoted the proper posts or been clearer.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, you offered an opinion you can't prove by showing a single example of such a couple getting married.

And you don't like the site I found Iowa's marriage instructions on?

Take your pick....


marriage instructions


marriage instructions


marriage instructions


marriage instructions

And here's a list of Iowa government websites which provide a link to the "printing company" you've been crying over...


marriage instructions


marriage instructions

And government websites which specify the state's marriage instructions directly on their site...


marriage instructions


marriage instructions

... and that's just the first page from a google search.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If you proved it is legal, you would have been able to find such a couple who got married.

*you can't find ONE.* 

All you've proved is that you're an incest-obsessed pervert.

Congrats!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, so now you want to get back on subject? And know you want to bring up documents all subservient to iowa code 595.19 that I've posted a link to an attorneys opinion on?

You are a sad little dude.

How about that link to the proposed law THAT YOU BOASTED ABOUT, that made same sex family marriage illegal (golly gosh, if it is already illegal, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU NEED TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL AGAIN FOR?)


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I can't prove what? That you're the one bringing up incest, not me?

Of course I can... here you are posting a list of *incest* statutes...

Because iowa only prohibits marriage between opposite sex couples, not to closely related. 

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

So Sayeth those that practice this law.....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No dork, it works the other away around. Law oabiding citizens don't make the news. But let's use your logic, OK dimwit, post the name of a single couple DENIED a marriage license, in Iowa, because they are too closely related, since 2009. 

That should be a cinch, right?

If you can't I guess it proves you wrong!

Oh, and THAT WOULD MAKE THE PAPERS squirt.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I haven't veered from the subject, perv23.

That law is proposed to account for the alterations to marriage made by Iowa's Supreme Court ruling. It doesn't make legal attributes of marriage illegal -- they're already illegal.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Law abiding citizens don't make the news??

LOLOLOLOLOL

That's among the dumbest things you ever said.

I guess when gay couples began flocking to states that made same-sex marriage legal, none of them made the news because they were "law abiding," right?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bring a subject up for discussion and using logic to promote marital rape are two completely different things. See you did it again. 

Incest is a crime. 

Marriage requires no sex to be a valid contract. 

By assuming that two siblings would marry to have sex, with no requirement that sex occurs, it is you advocating sibling sex and logically marital RAPE. 

You are one sick puppy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Deflection noted. Find the couple denied a license. Remember it IS YOUR QUALIFICATION OF REAL PROOF, not mine.

Your such a coward you can't even follow you own rules.

And that proves you are the supreme loser!


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What I did again was to show that it's you, not me, talking about incest.


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


A family seeking to marry each other where that is forbidden doesn't make news.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh really? I found a news article on a man denied a license to marry his lawn mower earlier. 

You are such a worm.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And by logical extension you find marital rape acceptable

Scumbag


----------



## Faun (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


By extension of your perverted, deranged mind, perhaps.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 27, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I'm trying to figure out how assuming a married couple will have sex is the same as advocating rape.

Marriage does not require sex, but lack of sex can be a valid reason to dissolve a marriage.

I think it is safe to assume that some amount of sex occurs in the vast majority of marriages.  Strangely, while I feel that is a safe assumption, I do not advocate rape.  

Oh, I'm still wondering about your statement that in Iowa same sex couples do not commit incest.


----------



## Boss (Oct 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Same sex couples didn't have access the same reason siblings don't have access, it's not what marriage is. Before they decided compelling state interest, they decided marriage could include a sexual proclivity it didn't include before. 



> You seem to think restricting rights should only apply where YOU think it should, or not at all.



No rights were being restricted. The definition of something had to be changed so that a right could be claimed that was supposedly being denied. It would be like, if I wanted to run around nude in public, claiming it was my right to free expression. Well, we have a constitutional right to free expression but it has never included public indecency... so the court alters the definition of "free expression" to include indecent behavior and voila... my rights _ARE_ being restricted! 



> You have been given reasons to deny various forms of marriage legitimacy over and over.  That you choose to dismiss the reasons given to try and make the argument against your silliness seem without merit is your own issue.
> 
> And when it comes to having a valid basis for arguments, maybe when you're willing to actually cite the relevant documents or rulings you argue about instead of avoiding doing so as though it's beneath you, you'll have some credibility.



No, I've not been given ANY valid reason. You keep presenting the very same reasons that SCOTUS just shot down in Obergefell. Somehow, those reasons magically become valid again, they just didn't apply to homosexuals. 

And here you are again, demanding I show you where the law says it can be challenged and changed! But I don't recall anything in the law before Obergefell that said _"marriage is the union of a man and woman but this can all be challenged by homosexuals and changed to include their sexual behavior!"_ In fact, most of the time, the law does not specifically authorize the SCOTUS to redefine things. So what the fuck do you mean? I can't show you where the law says one day the SCOTUS can overturn it by reinventing what things are!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Same sex couples didn't have access the same reason siblings don't have access, it's not what marriage is. Before they decided compelling state interest, they decided marriage could include a sexual proclivity it didn't include before.



Wrong. Gay couples didn't have access for the same reason interracial couples didn't...bigots. 



> No rights were being restricted. The definition of something had to be changed so that a right could be claimed that was supposedly being denied. It would be like, if I wanted to run around nude in public, claiming it was my right to free expression. Well, we have a constitutional right to free expression but it has never included public indecency... so the court alters the definition of "free expression" to include indecent behavior and voila... my rights _ARE_ being restricted!



Wrong again, Skippy. The definition of marriage did not change just because gays could also enter into it just as the definition of voting did not change when blacks and women were allowed to do it. Marriage remains the same as it always has, uniting a couple in matrimony.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You'll have to ask the poster that keeps making such assumptions. That poster claims that siblings can be denied marriage license because they might have sex.

Sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage in any state. 

It has been pointed out that, making such assumptions are not logical, but he rants on about it, so by logical extension that poster sees sex a requirement of marriage. If that's the case, he participants must perform sex acts since the consented to the contract. Neither would be able to deny the other.

clear nuff


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I'm not saying anything about anyone having sex. You're the one talking about incest, not me. Sadly, your comprehension sucks, probably because you're a pervert, and don't understand I am saying Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender.  That says nothing about sex. Even worse for your personal problems is that I even pointed out how if you were right, many people would have flocked to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. Also doesn't speak of sex.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Have a little looksie in the mirror, bigots...
_
"Extend the rule to the width asked for by the defendant, and we might have in Tennessee the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with the sister, in lawful wedlock, because they had formed such relations in a State or country where they were not prohibited. The Turk or Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, may establish his harem at the doors of the capitol, and we are without remedy. Yet none of these are more revolting, more to be avoided, or more unnatural than the case before us."_
_
_


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You did it again. I simply mention the word and I'm a Perv. You deny those that could benefit from marriage from entry into the contract because they might have sex, EVEN THOUGH ITS NOT A REQUIREMENT of marriage and you're not?

You make the assumption that sex is a requirement of marriage, therefore justifying marital rape. 

Sick dude, you want it both ways. Typical of the delusional personality you obviously have. 

As for your claim same sex family members can't msrry.....

Iowa classifies marriage as a license. No one can be denied entry into a contract as long as it meets all requirements of a legal contract. 

A contract is valid if it meets all requirements. It is void if it is missing any requirements the State requires. 

Check what the State of Iowa constitutes as which family relationships that are too closely blood related, thus creating a void marriage that would not be considered valid in Iowa. 

Same sex directly related family members are not listed. 

You lose loser.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Have a little looksie in the mirror, bigots...
> _
> "Extend the rule to the width asked for by the defendant, and we might have in Tennessee the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with the sister, in lawful wedlock, because they had formed such relations in a State or country where they were not prohibited. The Turk or Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, may establish his harem at the doors of the capitol, and we are without remedy. Yet none of these are more revolting, more to be avoided, or more unnatural than the case before us."
> _



That's from?

Link

Obviously you think sex is a requirement of marriage?

Link to that law as well


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sorry, perv23, but you don't get to project your psychosis onto me. You're the one talking about sex when you talk about incest. I'm the one saying close-family marriages are banned in Iowa, regardless of gender, which says nothing about incest or sex.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then your argument fails at its base. 

The 14th amendment declares all are to be treated equally unless the State has a compelling interest in denying the individual fundamental rights. 

That's why Iowa allows same sex family members the ability to marry, there is no great societal damage caused by such. 

What, is that a couple dozen loses to me in this thread alone.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Have a little looksie in the mirror, bigots...
> ...



That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will. 

Have another look in that mirror, Pops.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Now you're flat out lying, perv23. Iowa does NOT allow same sex family members the ability to marry.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And those disqualified because they are too closely blood related is contained in Iowa code 595.19. 

none are same sex. 

So a same sex couple comes into the Polk county clerk, and requests a license, reads the line you point out, and asks the question:

"How do we know if we are too closely related by blood, one of us were left on a doorstep of a police department and we were never able to find my parents?"

The clerk does what?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Incest is a crime. 

I don't advocate for incest. 

What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?

Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You can recite that section all you want, I will still show you that Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to immediate family members regardless of gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Of course you can show a single same sex couple that are family members denied a marriage license since same sex marriage became legal in Iowa in 2009?

If you can't, by your own standards you lose again. 

I've lost count of how many times I've shown your a dishonest Shmuck SuperPervFaun


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I can't because  such a couple being denied a marriage license is not newsworthy. Your claim, however, is that either such couples got married but didn't make the news or not a single family filed for a license to avoid paying taxes. Either of which is completely ludicrous.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are delusional. That denial would be highly newsworthy. Some one filing and recieving one, unless they wanted the publicity (as did a large number of gays), would not. 

You set up the rules of this game, now follow through, name the same sex family members that were denied a marriage license since same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009, or admit you lost the argument. 

Those were your rules, now back em up FraudFaun


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.

You can find none because there were none.

There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're proving your delusions. 

I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?

A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage. 

Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!

God you are a lightweight


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You could show anywhere in Obergefell where it talks about changing marriage law because of sexual propensity.

You could show where in Obergefell the same arguments I've made about denying various other possible forms of marriage have been 'shot down'.

You could have shown where any claims you made were backed up by SB377 when you went on and on about it.

You could ever cite anything when making claims.

Kind of the way your arguments about 'this is what marriage is' and 'allowing this kind of marriage will lead to.....' have been shown to echo the arguments made about Loving by various posters.  You know, when people have given actual quotes?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.

Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.

I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yes Pops...we know you're as certain as the guy I quoted...I just don't get why you think you're going to be any more right than he was, you're more strident?

Marriage remains non familial consenting adults...despite your screeching.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What you're portraying as a _"pamphlet"_ is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender. 

And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Your argument has already been blown to pieces since a brother couldn't marry his sister even before Obergefell. Sex is no more or less of a requirement of marriage before or since Obergefell.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope. He can't find one. Once again, Pop makes elaborate predictions based on his pseudo-legal gibberish. And once again, nothing he's predicted _actually happened. _


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And prior to Loving you would have been extolling the virtues of keeping the races separate.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




OK, your pamphlet is the instructions for filling out a form and not the actual law then....

<<<<shrugs at the obvious stupidity>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Good, now can I frame your argument Cuz you suck at framing mine.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


...included within, to qualify for marriage, the couple cannot be closely related by blood or first cousins.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Until you can show why two same siblings can marry after Obergefell when two opposite siblings couldn't before, your dead argument remains without a pulse.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Now now Skylar, Faun gets to make up the rules and this is how the idiots requires proof. If you can't find "x" then it is proof it's ______

With two of you working on this, then it will be a breeze to find a same sex family couple that was denied a marriage licence. If you can't then it's legal.

And then there's this attorney that agrees with me .....

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

But, hey, you have an instruction pamphlet on your side!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Living without a pulse is your gig, not mine


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Who says any were denied? Could be none even applied since Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family family members regardless of gender.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That's the state of your argument.

DOA


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Or maybe none were, since it's legal who would give a flying fuck?

But in your world the papers are 40 ft thick everyday full of reports on laws not being broken......

And instruction pamphlets.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You don't think closely related family marrying in Iowa would be considered newsworthy?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Who would report it? Those entrusted with citizens privacy?

The only reason same sex couples were newsworthy was because of Obergfell

Now it yawn

Suppose a same sex family couple would want noteriety? I doubt they would call the press sweetheart


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nope, that's your position. You're arguing exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage, right down to the slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



<<<<<shrugs>>>>>>

People obeying the law is NOT NEWS 

But this attorney agrees with me:

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And you got???????


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest. 

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."


----------



## Boss (Oct 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Oh, I can sit here and show you every detail, do all the research, make it into a college thesis.... you'd still waddle in and find something to take out of context and distort. How do I know? It's all you ever do here. I mean, here you are with your finger run up your nose trying to pretend Obergefell wasn't about homosexuals! Idiotically demanding I show you where SCOTUS said Obergefell can be used in the future as a basis for other rulings. Then, completely doing a 180 and claiming you never said that and admitting they can make rulings based on Obergefell if they feel like it... but... bottom line, it's not the law today and if I can't manage to change your flighty opinions which seem to change with the wind, I should just admit defeat. 

Hell, in the debate about SB377, a bill in Alabama that is now dead, I was more than willing to allow you to have your opinion about what it does. I didn't argue with you, if you wanted to believe it didn't change much or mean much, I was fine with that...seemed like we reached agreement we could both live with but that wasn't good enough for you. Nooo.. no way you can be caught dead agreeing with ME! Now you've somehow morphed the SB377 debate into an argument that I lost and you won. Dredging it up like some kind of lame trophy to prove your credibility and disprove mine.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Sure Pops. Siblings are marrying in Iowa. Proof? Pops doesn't need proof!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I don't need proof they are, I only need to prove its legal.....

Which I have

Now you prove they are not. 

Thanks much


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid. 

Kinda disgusting.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Except in Iowa and a couple others. 

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage. 

Next step? Who knows?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That's a lot of words to say you won't cite sources for your arguments.  

Nice job throwing in a couple of straw men!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It depends in part on the circumstances (would the state attempt to deny marriage to close family members, would the couple be forced to sue to attempt to get their legal marriage, etc.), but if the couple didn't make it news I would imagine that anyone working at the time they applied for a license might consider it worth mentioning to a newspaper or news channel, or someone involved would post on Twitter or Facebook and it would get attention from there.

Same sex couples were newsworthy long before Obergefell.  You don't think there were many news stories about same sex marriage prior to the ruling?


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're fucking nuts. 

There are 250 million Americans aged 16 and older, and now you're suggesting not one of them went to Iowa in six years to get married to a close family member to avoid paying inheritance tax where, according to your idiocy, it would have been legal for the first time since the adaption of those anti-close-family marriage laws thanks to a loophole created by Iowa's Supreme Court.

Your adventurous argument grows increasingly ludicrous in your vain attempts to bring that Frankenstein monster of a position back to life.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That putz is clearly prepared to make up anything, no matter how retarded,  than to just face the stark reality that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The news would most certainly report it. Hell, such people getting married would want everyone they know they were getting married only to avoid paying inheritance tax and NOT because they're  some kind of freak pervert like you. Those couples would be among the first people bragging to the news how they're taking advantage of a tax loophole. Conservatives taking advantage of such a loophole would be especially loud about boasting how that loophole was created by same-sex marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Prove none of them did. 

Go for it. You got three people looking now, your job is now 3 times easier

Report your finding back. K?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The news would have to become aware of it first. 

And just who would report it?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yes they do. The iowa 595.19 says so, as does an attorney touting it as a great way to pass an estate without paying inheritance tax. 

You calling an attorney a lier?


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Even more rightardedness.... 

Yeah... no one heard of same-sex marriages before Obergefell.  Up until then, there had never been a single mention of same-sex marriage anywhere in the news.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Because it was illegal and they were denied, hired an attorney and filed suit. 

That would make the news.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Can't you read?

I already said who would in the post you responded to. Plus, the state would have been reporting it if for no other reason, to bring attention to how folks were escaping paying inheritance taxes so that they could shut that loophole down as quickly as possible.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not if its legal, no need.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Umm ... same sex marriage was already legal in many states before Obergefell.



Ya know how we know this.......?

Because it was in the fucking news, ya perverted moron.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oy. 

Again...

Because you're so fucking brain-dead....

*So was same-sex marriage when that was first legalized in various states and it made huge headlines.*

You really suck at this.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Did the attorney say something as stupid as close-family members getting married to avoid paying inheritance taxes for the first time since we've had inheritancetaxes, wouldn't be newsworthy?

If he did, than sure, I'll call him a moronic liar too.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Of course it would. Especially if they were screwing the government out of taxes and due to a loophole created by the legalization of same-sex marriage?? Holyfuckingshit, their howls would be louder than _'BENGHAZI!!'_

Perv23's position was killed a long time ago. Even he knows it. He's just making up any shit imaginable at this point because he's a troll.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You know people have to present proof they're qualified to marry, right?


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Despite your delusions, Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Here ya go ... "close family members married in Iowa"...

No results found for "close family members married in iowa".

Your turn. Find even one such couple who actually got married.

Just one.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You were supplied the link. Read it


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



According to Iowa code 595.19 they sure do

But then you have an instruction manual on your side. 

So you lose


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Googled Faun is a dipshit 4,123,585,765,124 results.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The other states didn't have to recognize iowas same sex marriages though

So there's that


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yep, and only opposite gender family members and first cousins are excluded 

Iowa code 595.19 says so


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They're not screwing the government anymore than any other legal marriage. 

You get loonier and loonier dude


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You an attorney?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, close relation couple, the state will adjust the law pretty quickly if they haven't already done so when it happens.  I imagine we'll find out if/when it happens.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What do I lose? According  to Iowa, no families are allowed to marrying each other. Looks like you lose, perv. You're gonna have to move to Yemen if ya wanna marry your brother.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, ...



Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, ...
> ...



Blah blah blah, you can repeat that all you want, it doesn't change that same sex marriage is legal in this country.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I would agree with this, but the adjustment could be problematic as well

On a side note, an off the wall story was on the radio about a:

Man who's unresolved twin brother (died in the womb), fathered his son.

The condition is called Chimara and it appears that there has been some research as a possible cause of homosexuality.

That would sure clean up the nature or nurture article:



> She was a chimera. Tests revealed that while her blood cells had one set of genes, her ovaries held distinctly different ones. Those ovaries had produced the eggs that led to two of Keegan’s sons holding genes different from her own, said Lynne Uhl, a pathologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and co-author of the _NEJM_ study. The researchers reported that these different genes most likely came from a lost twin of Keegan’s, one whose cells she had absorbed while she was an embryo in her own mother’s womb.
> 
> The true genetic mother was a twin sister who she never knew and who was never born — a ghost.[\quote]
> 
> ...





This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, just Iowa


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Are you an attorney?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa. 

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold. 

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa. 

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't think the Iowa code would be too difficult to adjust.  I actually found it overly specific.  They could just say no to marrying a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt or uncle, with first cousins already being denied.  Or change it to say marriage is not allowed between anyone who is a first cousin or closer relation, maybe.


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Good to see I'm getting under your skin. Let's me know I'm on the right track. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





:


----------



## Faun (Oct 28, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not anymore. Now Iowa says they don't let any close-family members get married to each other regardless of gender..


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Of course they are. In no other marriage would a wealthy old man be able to pass his inheritance on to his son, if what you were claiming was true. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Even worse, they would get to boast about how they're getting away with it *because the gay mafia got rid of traditional marriage.* They would be ear-bustingly loud.

And you can't find one.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, ...
> ...


Not anymore. You're living in the past, gramps.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


WTF??

Does this mean you're now finally admitting there have been no such marriages?

For months now you've been pushing this nonsense that close family members could marry each other to avoid paying inheritance taxes .... you [idiotically] believe it's been legal to do so in Iowa for 6 years now ... but now you challenge others to show where you ever claimed anyone did??

So? What is it? Did any such marriages take place or not?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your premis is wrong. If they were able to pass it on without tax, they would be thankful, not angry. 

What world do you live in?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Another logical falicy that I've pointed out many times.

Because it's legal does not mean anyones taken advantage of it.

Here's a fun fact. Did you know if a brother and s sister marry in Iowa without knowing they were closely blood related, their marriage would be void. But if the two were same sex, it would be valid. 

Another fun fact. Birth certificates do not establish biological blood relationship. Odd iowa doesn't demand DNA testing of all applicants, don't you think?

But maybe it's because sex isn't a requirement of a valid legal marriage. 

BOOM

Made you look the retard again. 

This is almost too easy


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



In Iowa it can be the joining of to brothers according to iowa code 595.19


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



They've had 6 years to do so. Must be a reason. 14th amendment perhaps?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh I'm sorry...I guess I used the wrong word. Strong defense...is that better than support? You are a strong defender of incestuous marriages. You argue so effectively for them, it's hard to tell. For the casual observer of the thread, you are a strong and ardent supporter of siblings marrying each other "for the tax breaks". 

Do you suffer from some sort of dementia? You've been making the claim for pages and pages now that Iowa allows siblings to marry. You can't produce a single closely related couple that has been allowed to marry in Iowa, but you don't need proof. 

Whew...bringing out the big guns I see. I mean, wow..."big ugly dyke". Did it take you consulting with a 10 year old to come up with that biting response?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Proof of something being legal and proof of participation are two completely different standards as well as a logical falicy (and plain ass desperate in your part)

It is legal to screw two different college cheerleaders within 24 hours of each act (beleive me, it was hawt! Especially Donna), but I don't have to prove it happened for its legality to be without question.

Glad I could straighten out your lame argument.

And to the dyke comment. I use only appropriate descriptive language.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop, you don't have to admit you don't have proof, we already know that no closely related couples are marrying in Iowa, you're just being the anti gay bloviator you are. What you say is no different than:

_‘[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.’

‘The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.’

‘The State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.’_​
Same bigots, different decade.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


The absolutely coolest thing about the use of the word bigot is that it is a classic demonstration of bigotry.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


A world you don't live in. It's called reality. Case in point, I never said they would be angry. I said they would be ecstatic over it being an unidentified consequence of same-sex marriage. What the fuck is wrong with you, perv23?


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Nah, you just don't realize how stupid you look claiming not one single person out of a country of 250 million questionably eligible people took advantage of a loophole to avoid paying inheritance tax in what you called a "mess."


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Yet Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Another logical falicy. My argument is the legality, not the participation. 

You uber right wing bigots are laughable in your desperate attempts to deny rights afforded everyone under the constitution


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim. 

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I proved you wrong. It is legal. 

But you have a pamphlet.....


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That you think I'm rightwing only further proves your brain is broken beyond repair.

That aside, it's not believable that a tax loophole has existed for 6 years where any family could avoid paying inheritance tax and not 1 person in a country of 250 million eligible people took advantage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Prove nobody has. 

You can't, but you can whine like the uber right wing nutjob you are. 

Us progressive thinkers enjoy watching your logical falicy game crumble. 

It's a friggin riot!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You've never been laid by a human so I guess we understand your plastic fetish.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don't have to prove a negative. You're claiming there's a legal loophole to avoid paying inheritance taxes. That would say e some families millions of dollars.

The onus is on you to prove your claim.

It's beyond obvious you can't, so you try, and fail, to shift the burden of proof upon others.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

My kids would get a good laugh at that one. Why are you sooo desperate?


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


A "pamphlet" which contains the guidelines for whom Iowa considers eligible for marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate. 

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar 

Deflection in 3.....2.....1


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Key words "pamphlet" "guidelines". 

Those lines guide you the law, which is Iowa 596.19

Watch the nitwit dance everyone!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Those plastic things are dolls, not kids you demented retard.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out *you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage. *

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


WTF are you talking about now?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run. 

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your pussy arguments into little scraps of bullshit.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You've shown you do nothing but create one fantisy after the other, AND ADMIT AS MUCH, but then you expect anyone would beleive a single word you right. 

You would lie about taking a shit if you thought it would help your weak ass bluffs.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Your projections are noted as usual ... shame that's all you can do since you can't prove any family members married each other to avoid paying inheritance tax.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If the 14th were to apply, it would be in requiring adjustment, not leaving things as is.

Perhaps no one has bothered as it hasn't come up; I wouldn't be shocked if the legislature didn't know about it.

Perhaps Iowa applies their incest laws to marriage requirements, which would prevent closely related same sex couples from marrying.

Perhaps the marriage license forms from various Iowa counties which are less specific, only saying that too closely related couples cannot get a license, are used throughout the state and so no closely related couple can get a license (without going through the courts).  

The idea that Iowa has left a marriage statute which bars various types of opposite sex, closely related couples from marrying but has not changed the law to reflect the changes to marriage law allowing same sex couples access because of the 14th amendment is silly.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic. 

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread. 

Good job, take a bow. 

You and you're argument have been dispatched.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ok nitwit 

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex. 

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license. 

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT 

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You dumbfuck, I never said family members can't fool the state and get married despite Iowa's close-family restrictions. I said Iowa doesn't allow it. Whatever measures Iowa took years ago to prevent a brother from marrying his sister are the same measures they would use now to ensure a brother doesn't marry his brother.

Holyfuckingshit, perv. Stop hitting yourself with the stupid stick.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So dumbfuck. Daddy fools around on mommy. Daughter doesn't know this and Marries Mr. Wonderfull who turns out to be closely blood related. But the birth certificates don't show this. 

The couple takes a DNA test and finds out they are blood related. The marriage is void.

If the couple is same sex it is VALID.

Dumbass

The term Closely Blood Related is open to interpretation. The state of Iowa chose to create an OBJECTIVE format to define it.

It is found in 595.19 of the Iowa state code.

If you wish to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead. I'll keep beating you.

You are indeed a glutton for punishment.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


There ya go, projecting again. I point out you're a dumbfuck so then you mindlessly project that back. 

And there you are, perv, talking about incest again. 

Oh, and such a same-sex couple's marriage would also be void since Iowa doesn't permit any close family members to marry each other regardless of gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Fucking moron.

The same sex family couple does not appear on the void list.

If it can't be made void, it is legal.

The state cannot exclude legal participants in entry into ANY CONTRACT.

IF IT COULD'NT BE MADE VOID AFTER ENTRY, THEN THE STATE CANNOT PROHIBIT ENTRY INTO IT.

Troll on, we all know you will while waving you're instruction pamphlet like a sidewalk uber right wing nutjob cult preacher.

And, once again, yet another source:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Prohibited Marriages Undissolved prior marriage; between descendant and ancestor, brother and sister, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, first cousins; same sex

Which is very close to the list in Iowa 595.19 which is

*595.19*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


Findlaw continues with

*Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa*

Although Iowa's marriage statute says, "Only marriage between a male and a female is valid," the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in 2009. At the time, Iowa was just the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark 2015 case _Obergefell v. Hodges_, ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. FindLaw's Same-Sex Marriage section has more information and updates on the latest same-sex marriage developments, including a list of states that allow same-sex marriage.

HUH, whaddya know.

Same sex family members are not excluded and legalizing same sex marriage didn't have any other effect but to make same sex family marriage legal.

Golly gosh Faun, but hey, you got that there pamphlet! Right?


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What a shame, no matter how many times you cite that statute, Iowa still says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



^^^^^ watch the beaten troll dance for Pop.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Here's even more fun facts regarding Iowa's marriage law. 

Iowa allows same sex family members to Marry. 

Iowa had no residency requirement, so same sex family members from anywhere in the United States can Marry in Iowa. 

And since the USSC ruled that all marriage licenses, regardless of where they were issued, must be recognized in all 50 states.......

BINGO:

Same sex family members can Marry IN Iowa AND YOUR STATE MUST RECOGNIZE THEM!


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Beaten at what? Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender. 

Which is why you can't find one single such couple tying the not in Iowa in 6 years in a country of 250 million otherwise eligible participants.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Here's even more fun facts regarding Iowa's marriage law.
> 
> Iowa allows same sex family members to Marry.
> 
> ...


You perverted dork, you're making my point. I've already pointed out any eligible couple  in the U.S. can marry in Iowa. That's 250 million Americans.

And in 6 years, not one gas entered into such a marriage.

You described Iowa's situation a, _"mess."_

Looks like the only mess is the one betwixt your ears.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's even more fun facts regarding Iowa's marriage law.
> ...



Nope: there's more dumbfuck:

List of prohibited marriages

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

From an attorney with 31 years experience

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/24/14-35420Robinson.pdf

Another attorneys opinion

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Another independent source:

Annulment Of Marriage In Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

This ones interesting, from a family law attorney in West Des Moines, Iowa

Pretty much nails the idea that "the list" in 595.19" actually IS THE LIST OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Roger J. Hudson II
Family Law Attorney


 West Des Moines, IA
 IA licensed
Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

 Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree



Iowa Code 595.19

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's even more fun facts regarding Iowa's marriage law.
> ...



Prove none have dumbass.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You're asking someone to prove a negative...and then, ironically, calling them a dumbass.

It is you who must provide the evidence of your claims, bloviating troll.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


All referencing the same statute, which again, is meaningless since as you're well aware by now, Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​
As far as proving a negative, no, but you can't even prove a positive since you can't find a couple who has.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Exactly. Which is why he's boasting I can't prove a negative because he can't prove his delusions.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No you fat old hag. I never made any claim to begin with. Faun did. That no same sex family couple had ever married in Iowa.

So Faun, you and SeaBitch work this stuff out betwixt each other. Maybe 69, to rid yourselves of that awful frustration you both seem to have......

And get back to me.....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Except you're lieing about me ever making such a claim

Now go place your head between SeaBitchs tiny titties and get comforted


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun

Look at what you have:

A logical fallacy 

An instruction pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, which actually does not disagree with my argument that same sex family members can Marry. 

And a proposed piece of legislation making same sex family marriage illegal (because it's obviously legal now)


Then there are my sources, which include:

The law itself:

The opinion of 5 Attorneys:

And 2 independent sources that deal with a.) the law and b.) Marriage. 

Let's get started, shall we with my supportive evidence, since you have none?

List of prohibited marriages

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

From an attorney with 31 years experience

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/24/14-35420Robinson.pdf

Another attorneys opinion

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Another independent source:

Annulment Of Marriage In Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

This ones interesting, from a family law attorney in West Des Moines, Iowa

Pretty much nails the idea that "the list" in 595.19" actually IS THE LIST OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Roger J. Hudson II


Family Law Attorney


 West Des Moines, IA
 IA licensed
Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

 Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree



Iowa Code 595.19

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

I love it though, dig this folks

Faun is arguing AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Folks, you simply can't make this shit up.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Who's lying, perv23? I never said you claimed there were such marriages. You only think I did because you really are as retarded as your posts indicate.

I said you *"can't."* That's why you don't.

Savvy?


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun
> 
> Look at what you have:
> 
> ...


You can repeat your idiocy all night long, Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender. And the relevant contents of that _"pamphlet"_ either appears on, or is linked to, every Iowa government website I found where offering information on marriage, establishing it as an official state document containing official state prerequisites for marriage, despite your failed attempts to impeach it as just a _pamphlet from a print shop. _


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> I love it though, dig this folks
> 
> Faun is arguing AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE
> 
> Folks, you simply can't make this shit up.


Actually, you just made that shit up. And folks here know it.

I support same-sex marriage, you you're so brain deficient, you think I'm against it. 

I'm against any close-family members from marrying each other regardless of gender. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my position on that. Taking your idiocy to it's logicsl conclusion, you must think I'm against all marriages since since I'm also against opposite-sex close-family marriages.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, so all those post claiming I needed to find the names of same sex family members that married in Iowa to prove the legality was what?

An illusion?

You are pathetic.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun
> ...



Are you an attorney? Because 5 in my links, at least one that specializes in Family Law IN IOWAN, thinks your full of shit. 

And anyone who reads this thread, with all my supportive evidence, and you with none, know this to be true. 

Let's recap shall we:

Look at what you have:

A logical fallacy 

An instruction pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, which actually does not disagree with my argument that same sex family members can Marry. 

And a proposed piece of legislation making same sex family marriage illegal (because it's obviously legal now)


Then there are my sources, which include:

The law itself:

The opinion of 5 Attorneys:

And 2 independent sources that deal with a.) the law and b.) Marriage. 

Let's get started, shall we with my supportive evidence, since you have none?

List of prohibited marriages

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

From an attorney with 31 years experience

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/24/14-35420Robinson.pdf

Another attorneys opinion

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Another independent source:

Annulment Of Marriage In Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

This ones interesting, from a family law attorney in West Des Moines, Iowa

Pretty much nails the idea that "the list" in 595.19" actually IS THE LIST OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Roger J. Hudson II


Family Law Attorney


 West Des Moines, IA
 IA licensed
Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

 Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree



Iowa Code 595.19

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I love it though, dig this folks
> ...



Look at what you have:

A logical fallacy 

An instruction pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, which actually does not disagree with my argument that same sex family members can Marry. 

And a proposed piece of legislation making same sex family marriage illegal (because it's obviously legal now)


Then there are my sources, which include:

The law itself:

The opinion of 5 Attorneys:

And 2 independent sources that deal with a.) the law and b.) Marriage. 

Let's get started, shall we with my supportive evidence, since you have none?

List of prohibited marriages

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

From an attorney with 31 years experience

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/24/14-35420Robinson.pdf

Another attorneys opinion

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Another independent source:

Annulment Of Marriage In Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

This ones interesting, from a family law attorney in West Des Moines, Iowa

Pretty much nails the idea that "the list" in 595.19" actually IS THE LIST OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Roger J. Hudson II


Family Law Attorney


 West Des Moines, IA
 IA licensed
Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

 Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree



Iowa Code 595.19

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your using a logical falicy again. 

The legality is real, the participation is irrelevant 

Look at what you have:

A logical fallacy 

An instruction pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, which actually does not disagree with my argument that same sex family members can Marry. 

And a proposed piece of legislation making same sex family marriage illegal (because it's obviously legal now)


Then there are my sources, which include:

The law itself:

The opinion of 5 Attorneys:

And 2 independent sources that deal with a.) the law and b.) Marriage. 

Let's get started, shall we with my supportive evidence, since you have none?

List of prohibited marriages

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

From an attorney with 31 years experience

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/24/14-35420Robinson.pdf

Another attorneys opinion

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Another independent source:

Annulment Of Marriage In Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

This ones interesting, from a family law attorney in West Des Moines, Iowa

Pretty much nails the idea that "the list" in 595.19" actually IS THE LIST OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Roger J. Hudson II


Family Law Attorney


 West Des Moines, IA
 IA licensed
Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

 Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree



Iowa Code 595.19

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You made the claim they could...and were told to produce some. You can't because you are nothing but a bloviating troll and an anti gay bigot. Your slippery slope is no more real today than it was when someone said:

_‘[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.’

‘The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.’

‘The State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition ofpolygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.’_​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Incorrect, I was told to produce proof of my claim, since my claim was the legality, not the participation, I backed up MY CLAIM with this. Read it and weep.

Look at what you have:

A logical fallacy

An instruction pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, which actually does not disagree with my argument that same sex family members can Marry.

And a proposed piece of legislation making same sex family marriage illegal (because it's obviously legal now)


Then there are my sources, which include:

The law itself:

The opinion of 5 Attorneys:

And 2 independent sources that deal with a.) the law and b.) Marriage.

Let's get started, shall we with my supportive evidence, since you have none?

List of prohibited marriages

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

From an attorney with 31 years experience

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/24/14-35420Robinson.pdf

Another attorneys opinion

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

Another independent source:

Annulment Of Marriage In Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

This ones interesting, from a family law attorney in West Des Moines, Iowa

Pretty much nails the idea that "the list" in 595.19" actually IS THE LIST OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Roger J. Hudson II


Family Law Attorney


West Des Moines, IA
IA licensed
Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

 Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree



Iowa Code 595.19

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

You and Faun continue to CLAIM it is not legal because because I can't produce names. A complete logical falicy.

You and Fawn have zero supportive evidence to back up the pamphlet you supplied as the proof (or lack thereof) that same sex family members can't Marry.

I have at least five attorneys that support my argument (many more if you count the members of the National Association of District Attorney, link supplied earlier in this thread), two independent web pages and the law itself.

Now go find some supporting evidence that same sex family marriage is illegal in Iowa. So far all I've seen is moaning, groaning and crying.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My challenging you to prove your claim that same-sex consanguineous marriages are permitted in Iowa by showing examples of that actually occurring is not an illusion.

Nor is it inferring you claimed any such couples got married.

As I see no evidence of any such marriages,  I admit, it's a loaded question designed to expose your idiocy that such marriages are allowed in Iowa.

Why? Because if it were allowed, there's no question, in a country of 250 million eligible Americans, many of these marriages would have taken place over a 6 year period. There's also no question such marriages would have made the headlines since legal or not, like gay-marriages, consanguineous marriages have been banned ever since marriage laws were first drafted.

That you can't find a single same-sex close-family marriage speaks far louder to your claims than does your pointing to an ineffective law.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No matter how many sources you link which reference that same law, Iowa still says that don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Is it your belief that no such marriages occurred in Iowa?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Trying to make sense of a logical fallacy is your problem, not mine.

If you were so concerned over participation, you would do the leg work yourself. It's been noticed you won't.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I could care less. My concern is that it's legal, which it is. 

Why? If they did, what difference would it make to yours?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yet you can't supply supporting evidence?

I can, shows you're wrong


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I won't? I've already posted a Google search for such marriages and found none.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Odd how your position shifts, huh? You said such couples probably would marry for the financial benefits.

Now you say you don't care. Truth is, you know you can't prove any such couples got married so even though your position was they probably would marry, you've changed it to simply they can marry.

Only they haven't.

Because no state in the country allows it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You have no supporting evidence. You're citing a law you don't understand doesn't mean what you think it means and what you call supporting evidence is actually others referencing that same law.



Meanwhile, I've shown where Iowa says they don't allow any consanguineous marriages regardless of gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your desperation is delicious. 

Such a couple would.......

Is not the same as

Such a couple has......

Displaying you logical fallacy is as easy as that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



5 attorneys disagree.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You claim it's legal ... you claim it allows people to avoid paying taxes ... you claim it would be financial boom for hundreds of millions of people ... you claim people would do it .... 

... yet you can't find one who did.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Never looked.  

You claim it's not legal

You can't back it up

I've shown legal opinions it is

So, do your homework and back up you're statement.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Bullshit, you never looked. You scoured the Internet because if you could have found even one consanguineous marriage,  you could have shown Iowa allows it. You know it. I know it.

You can't find one because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



From cpaatlaw.com

Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant? ~ CPA at Law

The state of Iowa chose to remain silent on this question; its statute declares as void any marriage between "a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter" (and vice versa) in Iowa Code Ann. § 595.19. The court in Varnum v. Brien did not mention 595.19 or *consanguinity* and the legislature has not updated the statute since. As such, Iowa has seen fit to allow close same-sex relatives to marry; accordingly, an unmarried woman can marry her daughter and pass wealth to her tax free.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why would I believe the word of some random person on the Internet over the word of the state? Iowa says they don't allow such marriages...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 31, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because that random person backs up his argument with many legal opinions from actual attorneys. 

But you have a pamphlet you can't back up. 

So sad for you


----------



## Faun (Oct 31, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The _"pamphlet"_ Iowa has on their government websites? The one which reads, "not closely related by blood or first cousins", are not eligible to marry in their state?

And you didn't answer my question... why would I take the word of some random person you found on the Internet over the _"pamphlet"_ I found on their government websites?

And of course I have evidence which backs me up... not a single such marriage took place in Iowa in 6 years. Even you said families, out of hundreds of millions of people, would marry to take advantage of marriage benefits. Yet none have.

Iowa also says you can't marry there -- you have to be legally competent.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 31, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Prove none have

I'm sure you can gladly supply the DNA tests, right.

And the law specifically states the pairs who's marriages are void (the opposite of Valid) it appears you are wrong.

Here is the license qualification that you pamphlet references:
*595.3 LICENSE.*
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that
purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must
not be granted in any case:


1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the
marriage valid.
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the
marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by
section 595.2.
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil
contract.
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or
affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the
court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract
a valid marriage.

Your pamphlet references number 4.

Those prohibited are outlined in 595.19

They are:
Iowa Code 595.19

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

Sorry dude, still wrong.

Any way you cut it, same sex immediate family members may Marry in Iowa.


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That was last updated in 2005, before Supreme Court rulings altered their marriage laws.

Their latest instructions indicate no consanguineous marriages are allowed.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So using you're idiotic logic. A stepdaughter can marry her stepfather and a stepson can Marry his stepmother.

Also then, show us the updated version.

Clue, you're  pamphlet is just reference material. The ACTUAL LAW is superior.

You lose again


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.

And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else. 

But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.

So your claim turns out to be bunk.

But you already knew that.

You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.

And, you lose twice in a single post. 

Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with

So there's that.


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."

And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not at all. You understand affinity, right. 

You read Iowa 595 completely right?

According to you're pamphlet affinity doesn't matter, just close blood relations. 

So according to your pamphlet an uncle could Marry a Neice and a Stepfather his stepdaughter. 

You just made you're pamphlet a non issue with one single post. 

Good Job!


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...

 595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons *who are related by blood* are void...​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You missed the mention of affinity earlier in the law then?  You should try being a bit honest. You dishonesty makes you such an easy target. 

Once again proving you're dishonesty by not providing the entirety, plus not highlighting the applicable full statement:

Here, I'll do just that:

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1.* Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:*
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

You lose again.

Are you ever even going to provide a single point that stands?

So far you're batting .000

Hey, I guess even you now know your assertion that the pamphlet acutely represents the actual law is BS.

You're learning little fella

Same sex immediate family members can indeed Marry in Iowa.

Sucks to be you


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Stepfamily are prohibited by affinity 

Here it is again:

*595.3 LICENSE.*
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that
purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must
not be granted in any case:

4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or
affinity in which marriages are *prohibited by law*.

Note the highlighted. Affinity is not mentioned elsewhere, only consanguinity. 

Can you guess why?


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father. 

You're also too stupid to notice you posted it 3 times. 

Thanks again, though! I'm always amused watching you declare victory after *failing* to make your point.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Except the prohibition on affinity.

That's all inclusive.

Sorry, study up on affinity relationships and get back to us. Those are relationships created in writing, such as the one parent signing a marriage license thus bestowing rights and responsibilities of the non parent:

Link:

Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BOOM

Another FAUN FAILURE!

Lovin every time you post 

Cuz you


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.

The marriage instructions say nothing that excludes marriage laws in Iowa.

That boom you hear is you, hitting yourself over the head again with the stupid stick.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/baseball-bat-smiley-emoticon.gif


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then your pamphlet is in error and obviously does not represent the law as it does not stop a stepparent from marrying a stepchild. 

And iowa 595.19 allows same sex family members to obtain valid marriage licences as they are not prohibited from a valid contract. 

You still haven't produced a legislative passed bill, or a judicial ruling making the necessary change, and can no longer use the pamphlet as its been shown inaccurate. 

So I have multiple attorneys opinions on my side, the law itself and several independent websites that deal with these matters. 

And you have a discredited pamphlet. 

But you do babble.


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No dummy, you represented it as the law. It is obviously not. If so, step parents would be able to Marry stepchildren as they are NOT BLOOD RELATED.

Further, as pointed out before the law reads.

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

It is indeed finite.

You have yet to come up with a single piece of supportive evidence that shows that same sex family members are not eligible to hold a VALID marriage license.

But you do exhibit quite a nasty butthurt from the beating youre taking.


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Again, for the hard of reading.... nothing in their marriage instructions says that list of restrictions is exhaustive.

Here, have a tissue...


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You (that would be You) that presented that as your evidence that SAME SEX FAMILY MEMBERS could not marry, because they were blood related.

You posted that foolishness dozens of times. Now you backtrack.

I win again.

Imagine that


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As usual, you win nothing. I'm not backtracking anything. I still maintain the list of restrictions in their marriage instructions is accurate. I'm merely pointing out those instructions are not an exhaustive list of restrictions.

It's not my fault you can't understand that.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I indeed won.

I supplied THE LIST of prohibited marriages by blood that your link said would be invalid because they were blood related.

Same sex immediate family members do not appear on that list. Iowa 595.19.

Valid same sex immediate family members appear to have claim to valid marriage license in Iowa.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 2, 2015)

Wow...been away from this thread for a while...but nothing has changed. Pops is still advocating for siblings to marry but not actually doing anything about it....just more bloviating from the Popster.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And that is where you argument falls to pieces. I highlighted the salient portion for you to understand that what appears to retards like you is not reality.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Wow...been away from this thread for a while...but nothing has changed. Pops is still advocating for siblings to marry but not actually doing anything about it....just more bloviating from the Popster.


And despite claiming people out of hundreds of millions in America would marry close-family members to take advantage of tax benefits he claims are available by a loophole in the law created by same-sex marriage, he has failed miserably to show even a single such couple actually did.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...been away from this thread for a while...but nothing has changed. Pops is still advocating for siblings to marry but not actually doing anything about it....just more bloviating from the Popster.
> ...



Logical falicy doesn't help you're loser position.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Problem is, you're  dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Wow...been away from this thread for a while...but nothing has changed. Pops is still advocating for siblings to marry but not actually doing anything about it....just more bloviating from the Popster.



Why? I'm against family marriage. Just confused as to why the Iowa Supreme Court legalized it.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


There is no logical falicy. The one thing you got right was saying many of the hundreds of Americans would take advantage of such a loop hole.

You're right, they would. Unquestionably. 

You can find none who did.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It is based on their laws. Never said otherwise. The instructions even state as much. Nowhere does it state the list of restrictions is exhaustive. But keep trying, it's quite entertaining watching you flop around like a dead fish on the deck of a boat, gasping for life.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling.

Iowa instructs people interested in filling out a marriage application that regardless of gender, a marriage license will not be issued to any consanguineous couples.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're logical falicy is failing to grip 
the argument. 

I argue its legal, nothing more. 

You can't even dispute that, so you deflect to a logical falicy. 

You are sad.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Wrong, quit representing this in clearly a misleading way. There is not absolute ban on same sex, blood related same sex immediate family marriage. 

See


Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:

None on the list found in Iowa code 595.19 are same sex immediate family. There claim to a marriage license is then valid.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And not a single shred of supportive evidence. 

Fish, you got hooked


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And knowing this, why did the Supreme Court address it in their ruling which only made same sex marriage legal, and did nothing to make same sex immediate family marriage illegal?


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And yet, you can't even prove that.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa says there is. I choose to believe them over a forum pervert like you.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As usual, you prove yourself to be too brain-dead to think for yourself,  so you idiotically project your shortcomings upon others.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Because it was already illegal. The SC ruling did not create a loophole in the law. The spirit of the law remains; close-family marriages are still not permitted in iowa. You really are too slow to keep up. I don't know why you even try?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Except that I provided links to attorneys websites that indicate I did. 

And you, a pamphlet. 

Sad


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, the SC only changed 595.20 and was silent on 595.19. 

So you're wrong again


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And still no supportive evidence. 

Just a bunch of butthurt


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Those attorney's don't speak for Iowa... Iowa's marriage instructions do.

Learn.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa claims otherwise...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So, if this is definitive, then you beleive a stepdaughter can Marry a Step father. 

PervFaun never fails to amaze me.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The evidence was given... no such couples could be found.


----------



## Skylar (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Is Pop still babbling about his fantasy incest couple that he has no evidence even exists?

Yeah, there's a reason why every one of Pop's pseudo-legal predictions has never happened. And this thread demonstrates it.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not at all, they agree with me: 
*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Now you're making yourself dizzy ruining around in circles again, perv23. You know I don't believe that as we've already covered that.

If facts and truth were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Incest is an act, it's illegal. Marriage does not require sex to be valid. 

Since you obviously think this discussion is about a need for sex as a requirement for a valid marriage, you support marital rape. 

You are a pervert.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa says you're an imbecile. Who am I to disagree?

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No lie, you are the one that maintains your pamphlet accurately reflects the law, which I will point out again is far from true as the law actually states affinity marriage is prohibited but only blood related opposite sex family marriage is. 
*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

See PervFaun?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, it says you're a butthurt imbecile. 
*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

Why deny this. You're side fought for it.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You can point to a law affected by SC rulings all you want, Iowa still says close-family members can not marry each other regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa says you're a pervert and an idiot.

I agree with them on that too.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Perv23 says a loophole was created which would attract many inter-family members to marry each other for financial benefits ... but then none showed up.

He's as dumb as Stephanie who started the Operation American Spring  thread. Same level of idiocy. She claimed tens of millions of people would show up for that moronic event -- then about 50 complete idiots did ... perv23 claims those among the "hundred of millions" of Americans would show up in Iowa to take advantage of a tax loophole -- then can't find any who did.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, only opposite sex couples appear on the list.
*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


See, no same sex. 

And why do you keep pushing youre discredited opinion that a stepfather cans marry a stepdaughter? And an adopted son can Marry the adoptive Mother?

You are a weirdo.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Please link to the Iowa law that makes DNA testing a requirement to Marry?

Without those test it would be impossible to establish a blood relationship.

Please also link to the part of the law that states sex is a requirement of marriage.

Do you know that Iowa 595 actually just call marriage a contract? And that contract does not include sex as a requirement.

Do you also realize that Iowa classifies sex with a blood relative as a crime, but that crime can't be uncorroberated?

So you still have a big hill to climb, no doubt you're spindly legs aren't up to it though.

If you want to fund the massive testing that would be required to DNA test everyone married in Iowa since 2009 I'm sure we can arrange them. 

Here's a fun little bit of trivia. 

If we found couples that were blood related:

The opposite sex couples would have their licences void. 

Same sex family marriages would not.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I pushed no such thing. When do you stop lying, perv?


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Iowa still thinks you're an idiot.

http://www.co.carroll.ia.us/Recorder/Applicant Instructions.pdf

Oh well, C'est la vie.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your link, you're proof, says they can. 

They are not blood related, and you keep highlighting blood related as those who can't...........

Pretty weak supportive evidence if say.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Gee, that doesn't prohibit step parents from marrying stepchildren either.

Nor adopted parent and child.

And this is your evidence?

You really want people to believe you're a pervert?

Iowa prohibits all affinity marriage. Only a pervert would present this as law showing who iowa prohibits from marraige when the groups mentioned above aren't included.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that list is not exhaustive. That you can't argue without lying about  my position reveals even you know you lost this debate.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you really need to support you're own arguments, which you obviously haven't. 

I can't always do you're work for you. 

Time to grow up little one


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


When do you stop lying?


----------



## Skylar (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Wow.....it says right there in the Applicant Instructions:

3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; 

And Pop just pretends it doesn't exist. I'm guessing its this kind of pretending and willful ignorance that has led to *his record of perfect failure*. With exactly none of his pseudo-legal predictions ever coming true.


----------



## 320 Years of History (Nov 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> *I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care.* I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.
> 
> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but *it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed.* They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.
> 
> ...



Man has gone out to explore other worlds and other civilizations without having explored his own labyrinth of dark passages and secret chambers, and without finding what lies behind doorways that he himself has sealed.
 ― Stanisław Lem, _Solaris_

Let the flames begin!  (Was that an intentional pun?)  Looking at your opening paragraph, it's not clear to me what you wanted to see in response to your OP.....It is, however, clear to me that, as stated at the start of your post,  you "just don't care" about much other than the righteousness and "infallibility" of your own viewpoint on this matter.

In reading your post, it appears you associate homosexuality only with men.  Why is that?  Has it not dawned on you that there are as many gay women as there are gay men?

Red:
Say what?  Is the saying "it is what it is" incomprehensible to you?  Are you truly unable to observe others, in particular gay people, and not pass judgment?  Are you certain that nobody else can?  It seems from your comments that you can't and are.

Blue:
I don't understand.  What exactly are some examples of our being pushed "even further" and that show there to be "no end?"  

I've heard fundamentalist theists assert, for example, that the legal recognition of gay marriage posed the biggest threat to heterosexual marriage.  Poppycock!  The biggest threat to any marriage is the existence of divorce.

Purple:
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about lesbians publicly forcing themselves on women?  Do you find that notion offensive because it'd be an assault?  Or do you find it appealing because it'd be gay women rather than gay men?

Green:
I too don't care much for the notion of "political correctness."  I see PC as little other than a "guidebook" that shows moral miscreants how to behave and what to say, thereby allowing them to move through society without the rest of us being readily aware of their true nature.

Orange:
It stands to reason that if a television show's producers opt to depict characters and themes that you find objectionable, that the show might no longer be among your favorites.  Why do you persist in watching a show you don't like?  Why are you complaining here?  Change the channel.  Write to show's producers.  (I might not have had these remarks, but as I wrote above, it's not clear just what you expected us to say in response to your OP.)

Pink:
You really should get out and read more.

Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? | Yale Scientific Magazine

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

The Natural "Crime Against Nature": Homosexual Behaviors In Animals
It's one thing to just not know something.  We can't all know everything about everything.  Willful ignorance, however, is unpardonable when it's accompanied by very strong feelings and set of beliefs, beliefs so strong that one will compose and publish publicly such as the pink ones I've highlighted in your OP.  It's clear that you've bothered to neither wonder whether you might be mistaken, to say nothing of even searching to determine whether there exist facts that might call them into question or plainly refute them.

I can respect that you find homosexual behavior among humans abhorrent (even though I don't agree), but asserting that same-sex pairings is abnormal, not natural, is quite simply wrong.  Sure, homosexuality isn't the most commonly exhibited sexual behavior among animals (human or otherwise), but frequency of occurrence does not demonstrate abnormality.  Indeed, that it exists at all indicates that it's normal.  For example, cancer, though not beneficial, yet is a normal thing that happens.  Cancer is undesirable, but it is normal.

Nothing limits intelligence more than ignorance; nothing fosters ignorance more than one's own opinions; nothing strengthens opinions more than refusing to look at reality.
 ― Sheri S. Tepper, _The Visitor_


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



When do you supply any evidence that would advance you're argument?

Showing you're foolishnes is not lieing

But it does provide me hours of free entertainment


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 2, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well. 

You two are the perverted as hell. 

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members. 

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're still lying -- I've provided it. Repeatedly.

If truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## Faun (Nov 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it. 

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry. 

It's either one or the other. 

Which?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No lies needed. If your pamphlet is proof, then affinity marraige is legal. 

Clue: youre full of bullshit.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Concession noted


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Aww. How sad for you, perv?  The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.


----------



## Skylar (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Laughing......a perfect record of predictive failure. The inability to factually establish even one of the marriages he insists are occuring. And Iowa instructions for marriage explicitly contradicting him.

Sounds like a 'winner' to me!


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I did

You failed

Concession noted x 2


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not just their marriage instructions; Iowa law the instructions are based upon...

*595.3** LICENSE.*
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must not be granted in any case: 

Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.

Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.

Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.

*Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*

Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.
​


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If such marriages were legal in Iowa, then you'd be able to show an example of even one such marriage since even you agree that families would marry each other to avoid paying certain taxes. Yet you can't because Iowa never allowed family members to marry each other regardless of gender and they still don't.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You realize that Iowa does not test for family status, right?

So, you fund the DNA testing that would be required to make such a determination, and here's a fun little fact:

If an opposite sex couple would turn up blood related, their marriage would be declared void.

If a same sex couple turned up blood related, thiers would be declared valid.

Got anything to actually add?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, I already won that point, but you can deflect until the cows come up......

You still lose


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So you claim. But then, you can't even prove your case.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Old news. I've already posted a Iowa family practice attorney that blew that out of the water. The question was, can a great great uncle marry a great Neice. The answer:

Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

 Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree

Note: 2 lawyers agree 

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Looks you lose again!


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


This may be Earth-shattering to you, but you can't win a point you haven't proven.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It is you with the burdon of proof Goat Head


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



1. Have

2. Did.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


And yet, Iowa still says such a marriage is not allowed to take place in their state.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Too funny... you're the one claiming same-sex close-family marriages are legal in Iowa -- yet you think I have the burden to prove they're not because you're incapable of proving they are.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sure, ya have, perv. Uh-huh. <SMH>


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What's funny is that I've proven they are, but you can't prove they're not

So sad.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, a discredited pamphlet said they are not, the law says they are. 

So sad for you


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You've proven you're a pervert and an idiot, nothing else. Oh well, c'est la vie.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And, you got nothin.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Funny how Iowa still uses those marriage instructions you've deluded yourself into believing you've discredited.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The ones you think allows adoptive parents to marry their adopted children?

Oh, maybe you like that idea?

Pervert


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Lying doesn't help you.

I've got Iowa's marriage application instructions...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​
I've got the Iowa law those instructions are based upon...


*595.3** LICENSE.*

Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar.  *The license must not be granted in any case:*


Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.


Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.


Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.


*Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*


Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.
​
... and I've got there being no evidence that Iowa permitted a single marriage of same-sex close-family couples in 6 years out of hundreds of millions of people.

If ya wanna see what nothing really looks like -- look between your ears.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Umm, you're the one pressing for that to be legal, perv23. 

Meanwhile, Iowa still uses those marriage instructions that you idiotically think you've discredited.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Perv23 once again demonstrates he can't think for himself so he instead resorts to parroting to others what others say about him. This time, he rated one of my posts 'funny' after I did that to him.

Grow a brain, perv23. <SMH>


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ya mean like this couple....?

Father, Adopted Son Seek Right To Marry Each Other

Judge Lawrence J. O’Toole, of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, denied the couple’s request saying that he was “sensitive to the situation” but that they cannot marry “because they are legally father and son.”​
... if you were right that couples such as this one could marry each other in Iowa, they would have ran to Iowa in a heartbeat to get married.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, affinity marriage is illegal in Iowa.

Do you not understand you're own argument?

You argue you're pamphlet represents the Iowa state law, if it did, that couple could. Iowa prohibits affinity marriage, PROVING YOURE PAMPHLET IRRELEVANT.

And FaunPerv, no matter how hard it makes you, an adopted parent cannot marry an adopted stepchild

You are one deranged MF, if you think otherwise.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, Iowa 595 make affinity marriage illegal, your pamphlet fails to mention that point. You represent it as an accurate reflection of Iowa law. 

Maybe it gives you Wood, the rest of us find you stupid.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The derangement is all yours as you've been claiming that same-sex close-family members could marry each other.

Seems you finally figured out they can't.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I WISH. If only Iowa 595 agreed. 

But sadly, only the following Marriages are considered void in Iowa. 

If I've forgotten to post them directly in the past, please allow me to post them now.......

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

I know, Right? 

Not a single same sex family member would have their license declared void. 

You must be thinking the same as me........

WOW, those Supreme Court Justices were complete morons!


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I'll leave you to argue with yourself.

Before, you said that couple couldn't get married in Iowa...

_Nope, affinity marriage is *illegal in Iowa*._​
... now you say they can marry. 

Let me know who wins this argument you're having with yourself.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where did I say that related individuals by affinity can marry?

Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adopted children are related by affinity, not blood


*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by       blood are void:         _a._  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,       daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's       daughter, or sister's daughter.         _b._  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's       brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or       sister's son.         _c._  Between first cousins.         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife       living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after       the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage



Check out item #1. It references Blood related, not by affinity.

Too bad I had to spoil another of your perverted fantasies.

Once you get you're head out youre butt, maybe you could make a point that sticks?


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Imbecile. The same law which prohibits affinity marriage *also prohibits* consanguineous marriage...



*595.3** LICENSE.*

Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar.  *The license must not be granted in any case:*


Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.


Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.


Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.


*Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*


Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.
​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And yet they qualify blood related in this manner:


*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by       blood are void:         _a._  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,       daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's       daughter, or sister's daughter.         _b._  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's       brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or       sister's son.         _c._  Between first cousins.         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife       living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after       the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage

No such qualification for affinity marriage, simply blood marriage.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Shows just how stupid you are. You actually saying it's illegal for a same-sex consanguineous couple to get married, but should they slip through the cracks and manage to get married despite 595.3, then their marriage is legal because of 595.19.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No crack to slip through. They have the right to a valid licence. 

The list of those blood relatives that don't has been supplied many times 

And that assertion has been backed up by 5 legal experts that were also linked to. 

Of course, you've supplied none.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The law says they don't. Shows just how retarded you are.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Just the opposite is true. And it's not just me who says so, its 5 legal experts. 

Against you. 

Laughing my ass off


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Umm, if you weren't delusional,  there would be such married couples.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And you've provided no proof there aren't.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don't have to prove a negative. You said it would happen. You can't prove it did.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then I'll reissue the challange lil billy goat boy:

Since iowa does not require blood or DNA tests, you supply funding for everyone married since 2009 and prove you're point. 

And again, the fun fact:

If the test turns up an opposite sex blood related family couple. Their license would be voided. 

If the test turns up a same sex blood related same sex couple, theirs would be valid. 

Laughing my ass off at you AGAIN!


----------



## Skylar (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, but he imagines it did. Just like he imagined it would. So you're talking apples and oranges.

You're talking about the real world. He's talking about his imagination.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The real world (a foreign land to you) is that Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing. 

Fauns attempt to get Skylar to save his ass is funny as hell though.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're too fucking retarded.  

You're argument is now reduced to ... Iowa doesn't allow close-family marriage but if such couples can trick the government into not knowing they're related, then they can marry each other even though the law forbids such marriages.

Dumbfuck.... that has always been the case in every state since the birth of this nation. It certainly has nothing to do with same-sex marriages becoming legal.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've said it before, frame you're own debate, you're lousy at framing mine. 

Iowa law allows the legal marriage of blood related immediate family members. 

I've backed my opinion with at least 5 legal experts. 

That debate has been won by me. 

You lose again


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, Iowa states otherwise...

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yet your discredited pamphlet can lead to the truth, which is:

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

All means same sex family can marry.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Iowa's marriage application instructions are not "discredited" simply because you believe them to be. In fact, Iowa still uses them and urges all applicants to read them.

And look... such marriages, in accordance with Iowa law, are banned...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then step parents can Marry the stepdaughter because your pamphlet doesn't mention affinity marriage.

The law ACTUALLY a does reference blood marriage, like such:
*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

AND, I've posted 5 (count em 5) legal experts that back me up. That same sex blood related family members can Marry in Iowa. 

You, well we can expect Skylar to show up with his stupid ass crap again.....

But sadly, you won't supply a single legal expert to back up you're argument.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Nope, you're still wrong as Iowa law also prohibits marriage to couples too close through affinity...


*595.3** LICENSE.*

Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar.  *The license must not be granted in any case:*


Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.


Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.


Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.


*Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*


Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.
​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"In which marriage is prohibited by law" which is defined in Iowa 595.19, as such:

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by       blood are void:         _a._  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,       daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's       daughter, or sister's daughter.         _b._  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's       brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or       sister's son.         _c._  Between first cousins.         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife       living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after       the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage       shall be valid. 

Notice: no same sex blood related immediate family couples listed. And #1 only related to blood, not affinity, so all affines are prohibited. 

And............

5 legal experts say so as well. 

And you?

A big goose egg

But that's to be expected.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My, my, your ignorance knows no boundaries, does it?

If 595.3 (4) was talking about 595.19, it would have referenced it. Just as 595.3 (2) referenced 595.2. Furthermore, and also to highlight your ineptitude, 595.3 and 595.19 have nothing to do with each other.

Why on Earth did you think they did??  _(I actually know the answer )_

595.3 identifies who is eligible to get married; whereas 595.19 identifies which marriages are void.

Funniest part? You're almost stupid enough to argue this nonsense as you are not to stop. <SMH>


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And of course you have a legal expert to back up your fantasy?

Here's the opinion from a family law attorney, who specializes in family law in Iowa:


Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com


Family Law Attorney


West Des Moines, IA
IA licensed
Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Thus indicating the part of the statute that defines who may marry.

A Family Law Attorney from Iowa backs my argument.

Makes you look the fool again.

Your turn, your expert witness to back you're story is...........

Too funny


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Two separate sections in the law. One is for who is eligible to get married while the other is about which marriages are void.

And you're dumb enough to confuse the two. 

Do you really think the forum needed more reason to laugh at you, perv?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's not my opinion, it is that of a practicing Family law attorney, as well as the two attorneys that agree with him:

Again the link:

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

That sound you hear is not laughter, it's you're argument going:

BOOM!

But you have your butt buddy Skylar on you're side

Either of you Family Law Attorneys? I don't think working the fry station counts for much against the word of an expert.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Your appeal to authority is noted, meanwhile, Iowa still says such a couple cannot legally get a marriage license...


*595.3** LICENSE.*

Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar.  *The license must not be granted in any case:*


Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.


Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.


Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.


*Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*


Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.
​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, says the experts:

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You can quote a random attorney offering free advice all you want... Iowa law still says otherwise...


*595.3** LICENSE.*

Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar.  *The license must not be granted in any case:*


Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.


Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.


Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.


*Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*


Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.
​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



When I want legal advice, I seek out an attorney. When I want specific advice about Family Law, I seek out an Attorney who specializes in Family Law, not a anonymous random goat headed poster on an Internet forum.

Are you an Attorney?

No?

Then I'll stick with this guy who is, and who's specialty relates to the issue in question.

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

See, you lose again.

But then again, that's to be expected of a loser


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You can call yourself a weiner all ya want, Iowa law still says the following people can't get married...

*Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And the degrees of consanguinity are?

The iowa legislature obviously saw the bolded problematic and decided to outline what they were by clarifying it in 595.19

That is backed up with this answer, by a qualified Iowa Family Law Attorney:

Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Link: Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Link provided, question answered by a credentialed expert. 

Unless you are an attorney, you have zero cache, and you lost again

You actually are an embarrassment to your side

But I don't mind showing everyone exactly that.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And that has what to do with your point that you idiotically think same-sex siblings or parents/children can marry each other? You're now changing your argument from this being about gender to it being about the degrees of consanguinity or affinity.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, mines the same, blood related, not on the list, good to go

Twisted in knots are you?


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


He's talking about degrees and you're talking gender. 

Nice epic fail, perv23.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, not sure you get it nanny goat guy. 

Simply put, Iowa law prohibits all forms of affinity marriage, but allows certain kinds of blood marriages, regardless of degree, because bonehead justices changed one part of Iowa 595 while remaining silent on 595.19. 

Found a legal expert to back your silly notions yet?

I have

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

And backed that up with:

From Cpaatlaw.com:

The state of Iowa chose to remain silent on this question; its statute declares as void any marriage between "a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter" (and vice versa) in Iowa Code Ann. § 595.19. The court in Varnum v. Brien did not mention 595.19 or consanguinity and the legislature has not updated the statute since. As such, Iowa has seen fit to allow close same-sex relatives to marry; accordingly, an unmarried woman can marry her daughter and pass wealth to her tax free.

Two attorneys against one troll. 

Glad I could, once again.........

KICK YOUR TROLL ASS!


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oh, I get it alright.

You think an attorney who's discussing degrees of consanguinity and not gender is corroborating your insanity that two family members of the same gender can marry each other. 

You think the state of Iowa prohibits a man from marrying his brother-in-law but not his biological brother. 

You think a law which describes who is ineligible to marry is the same law which describes which marriages are void. 

You think family members would marry each other to avoid paying taxes but can't find a single couple who did so.

And lastly, for you to swallow all of the above idiocy, you have to ignore Iowa law which bans ALL marriages within degrees of consanguinity or affinity.

*The license must not be granted in any case ... wh**ere the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*​
See? I get it exactly.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Now show the refernced degrees 

Do you not understand what your talking about? Or why iowa chose to add definition. The attorneys do. 

But who are they to argue with a dipshit Internet troll such as you?


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Degrees of consanguinity have nothing at all to do with gender.

Now ya know.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



yippee skippy!

Appears it does in Iowa thanks to stupid asses Iowa Supreme Court justices. 

Now, care to provide any evidence that conflict with the 5 legal experts and two web resources I've supplied dozens of times indicating that same sex closely related family members can Marry in Iowa?

Or are you going to continue this charade?

Charade continues is 3.....2.....1


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As you've been shown, 5 attorneys don't agree with you. Hell, one of them wasn't even addressing your lunatic claims. 

And again, no attorney's opinion dismisses Iowa law...


*595.3** The license must not be granted in any case ... Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Key words are " in which prohibited by law"

Iowa 595.19 is the list of those prohibited by law. 

Again you lose.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Now you've really fucked yourself, perv...

Show the law you _*think *_ 595.3 references when it reads, "... affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law."


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Try to get that knot you're twisted in straightened out.

1. Affinity marriage is prohibited period. The state made that clear in your own link. It is prohibited in ALL DEGREES.

2. Iowa 595.19 ONLY DEFINES THE BLOOD RELATED (not affinity) MARRIAGES THAT ARE PROHIBITED

Get it dunce.

Dudes so delusional he thinks his opinion outranks 5 legal experts.

Seek mental help soon!


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Hisses the forum pervert who thinks Iowa allows biological brothers to marry but not brothers-in-law. 

Dumbfuck, you don't even know what those lawyers are saying. Like the one who's talking about degrees of consanguinity but you moronically think he's confirming your idiocy about gender.

And as always, we have Iowa law...


*595.3** The license must not be granted in any case ... Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.*​
Bonus points if you can answer this with even a modicum of sanity... *what do you think, in any case, means? *


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're problems are your own. If we use you're rationalization, 595.19 need not exist as it would have no purpose.

Why, if not true, would a liberal Iowa Senator promote a bill to change it? It has no purpose right?

Go for it Skippy.

And for bonus points, clue me in on where the degrees on consanguinity end? Wow! Maybe some definition is in order?  LMAO. 

Iowa set that in 595.19 with specific pairing. You see that, right?

Or you still gonna try to twist it into something it's not?

Still, I have one attorney that specifically states that if the relationship is not on 595.19 then you are free to marry, and a second confirming the first, being even more specific in his response.

And you, making shit up again.

Again, are you an attorney?

No, then your interpretation of their opinion is worthless

As are you.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Figures. Well, no bonus points for you. "In any case," means exactly what it states, in any case. Not "in any case" but consanguineous couples. Not "in any case" but unless they're the same sex.

And again, you're conflating laws. 595.3 doesn't reference 595.19. If it did, it would specify 595.19 just as it specifies 595.2 in subsection (2). And again, 595.3 is about who can legally marry. 595.19 is about which existing marriages are void. And again, the intent of 595.19 is to disolve *any* consanguineous marriages. The intent of that law doesn't change because a Supreme Court ruling changed the allowable gender makeup of marriages.

And again, this is all echoed by Iowa, which pretty much puts the attorney you found, to shame.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Intent of the law? Tradition? Seriously?

You have failed to reveal the degrees of consanguinity that you claim exists in Iowa law.

What? 1st, 3rd, 6th?

Are we to just guess?

Why?

With blood relatives it goes on and on and on. Biologist would say that we all come from a single blood relative pair, so using an objective veiw, it must have limitations. Plus it applies to bloodlines (the reason blood relatives were punished for sexual intercourse throughout history). With same sex their relationships, sexual or not, does no long term societal damage to the species, and that may be why Iowa kept the controlling list of prohibited pairs as is. We got that messy 14th amendment problem afterall, to deal with.

My question now is, since you have failed to provide any legal expertise to back your foolishness up........

Why do you call the Iowa Supreme Court perverts when they approved Same Sex Marriage, and never ordered changed in 595.19?


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Who said anything about tradition? I'm talking about the spirit of the law. Iowa never allowed close-family marriages and they still don't. 

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And again, iowa defines closely related by blood as:

*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

It sure appears they allow same sex immediate family to marry. 

Unless you can find another definition of closely related by blood. You lose.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Even Iowa laughs at you.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, Iowa and 5 legal experts, that back me up, laughs at you. 

To sad for you


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa laughs at those 5 purported lawyers too. Except maybe the one who's not even talking about gender.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Purported?

Three of the five have their credentials posted on line. If you are suggesting that they are practicing law without a license, I suggest you contact the State Bar.  

And your credentials?


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My credentials are my ability to read and comprehend. Putting my comprehension level at about 12 grades plus four years of college ahead of yours.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And yet you're running continues. 

5 legal experts disagree with you. 

Your idiocy is showing.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And Iowa disagrees with them.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Seems not. I'll take the opinion of 5 legal experts over 1 imbecile on an Internet forum any day.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Of course you would, because you're that stupid. Iowa gives out marriage licenses, those attornies do not. So I choose to believe Iowa.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



YOU can choose whatever you wish to. That's obvious. 

5 legal experts disagree with you're choice.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It's cute how you say that as though it has any meaning at all when Iowa says no close-family members are allowed to marry each other regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yet you have yet come up with any definition of the degree of "close". Iowa itself has and none of those are same sex.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sure I have ... ... within degrees of consanguinity or affinity ...


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How many degrees on consanguinity?

Not defined?

Oh shoot, 

1 degree?

3 degrees?

8 degrees?

Or are we to guess or use the defined " blood related" found in Iowa code 595.19?


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You would have to refer to Iowa law since 595.19 does not refer to affinity nor does it refer to folks applying for a licence.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Affinity is not blood related. Iowa prohibits affinity marriage completely. It defines what is blood (consanguinity). 

Odd that the Iowa Supreme Court would fail to address this parodox, but they did. And it's been six years.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 9, 2015)

Wow...Poos is STILL carrying on about his favorite obsession, incest. That's got to be a record.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Except that what you say makes absolutely no sense except to brain-dead perverts such as yourself.

According to your idiocy, Iowa prohibits two brothers-in-law from marrying but allows two biological brothers to marry. According to your dementia, Iowa prohibits a man from marrying his step great grandmother-in-law but allows that same great grandmother-in-law to marry her own biological great grandson.



That's how fucked in the head you are.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Wow...Poos is STILL carrying on about his favorite obsession, incest. That's got to be a record.



Incest is illegal.

Why did the Iowa Supreme Court not address same sex family marriage in 2009?

Why are you assuming that sex would be involved anyway. Iowa law does not require sex as a qualification to marry. Are you reading something that's not there?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not me, the Iowa Supreme Court made it so. And 5 legal experts back that up.

Sorry, it's 5 legal experts against you.

And only the demented would take the word of an obvious troll over them.

Also, according to you, those closely related by blood can't marry, but you can't find how that's defined. 

I can, it's defined in 595.19 of the Iowa code.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Of course, you. Iowa does not prohibit two brothers-in-law from marrying but allows two biological brothers to marry. Iowa does not prohibit a man from marrying his step great grandmother-in-law but allows that same great grandmother-in-law to marry her own biological great grandson.

You're fucking retarded to think they do.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I guess all you can do is cut and paste when you have zero legal experts to back you up, while I have 5 plus.......


Not me, the Iowa Supreme Court made it so. And 5 legal experts back that up.

Sorry, it's 5 legal experts against you.

And only the demented would take the word of an obvious troll over them.

Also, according to you, those closely related by blood can't marry, but you can't find how that's defined. 

I can, it's defined in 595.19 of the Iowa code.


Guess you enjoy being a troll


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How sad.  You have to resort to lying again. As has been exposed on this very thread, you don't have five lawyers on your side as you claim you do. At least one of them is not even discussing the issue of same-sex marriage as you are, he's not confirming anything that you're claiming. But since neither truth nor facts nor reality are on your side, what else can you do but lie?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, what he points out is that Iowa 595.19 is indeed the list of those not allowed marriage license. 

And you?

Well, we have a trolls opinion.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What he points out has nothing to do with gender. Oops, there goes another idiocy of yours.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



But Iowa 595.19 does. 

I know trolling is you're thing

But at least try.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Except that it doesn't since the spirit of that law is to void consanguineous marriages. That hasn't changed even though Iowa has not updated their laws regarding same-sex marriage; though as you've been shown, such a bill is on the docket.

And as always, Iowa still says they don't allow any such marriages regardless of gender...

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Spirit my ass!

You don't need "spirit" when you have the words. 

Those are specific in Iowa 595.19. 







*595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.*
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
_a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
_b._ Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
_c._ Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

And again, not just me, it's five legal experts that back me up. 

Same sex siblings can legally be married in Iowa.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If that were true, blood relatives would be marrying each other to save on taxes. You said so yourself.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Logical falicy. 

Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing for a license. 

But back to the fun fact:

If an opposite sex sibling couple were found closely blood related, the state would void their license. 

If both were same sex, the license would be valid.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


_A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning._

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. *You said so yourself.*


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me. 

Sorry, troll on


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again. 

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license. 

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex?  VALID.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test. 

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test. 

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX?  VALID. 

Man your fails are incredibly epic. 

Truly laughable.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA.  That's how big of a loser you are.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality. 

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion. 

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much. 

Report back. K?


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related. 

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?


----------



## Faun (Nov 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption. 

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples. 

I weep for you.


----------



## Faun (Nov 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, I'm not referencing 595.19, though I could if I wanted to since the intent of that statute is to prohibit all marriages within 3 degrees of consanguinity. 

You really suck at this, pervert.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then the Iowa Supreme Court would have changed it dummy. 

And 5 legal experts (meaning they know what they are talking about.....the opposite of you), back me up.


----------



## Faun (Nov 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The Supreme Court doesn't have to specify which codes are affected by their rulings. Just like when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell,  they didn't specify which codes were affected.

And as far as your 4 attornies  (+1 who doesn't confirm your idiocy) ... you still lose to 30 counties in Iowa who claim Iowa does not issue marriage licenses to close-family members who want to marry each other, regardless of gender...

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, they actually don't.


----------



## Faun (Nov 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Of course they do. 

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​
It's cute though how you think your inability to comprehend that actually matters.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nor yours. You really think "blood related" truly has the same reasoning with both groups?

That's the funniest aspect of this whole discussion.


----------



## Faun (Nov 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No one really needed more evidence that you're retarded, perv.  I never said that includes both groups. You only think I did because you're retarded.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Deflection from the reality of actual words is an art form you have mastered well grasshopper.


----------



## Faun (Nov 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Who's deflecting? I'm pointing out that I never took the position you're ascribing to me.  You have to make shit up about what I say in a vain attempt to make your own failed position sound possible. That's not me deflecting, that's you hallucinating.


----------



## Faun (Nov 21, 2015)

Looks like if perv23 isn't ascribing words to me I did not post, he has nothing to say at all.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Looks like if perv23 isn't ascribing words to me I did not post, he has nothing to say at all.



Except your wrong. And 5 legal experts back me up.


----------



## Faun (Nov 21, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like if perv23 isn't ascribing words to me I did not post, he has nothing to say at all.
> ...


Spits the idiot who can't spell, _you're._ 

Imbecile... 30 counties in Iowa trump the attornies you found. Especially the one who wasn't even talking about what you're talking about.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This has already been discredited by the actual law. 

But you already knew that


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, you claim it's been discredited by you and your distorted understanding of the law. Meanwhile, Iowa still provides this information to anyone looking to get married in their state, which clearly prohibits marriage to two brothers or two sisters or mother/daughter or father/son...

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And yet Iowa 595.19 conflicts with this. 5 legal experts agree with me and you have yet to find the definition of closely related by blood. 

I've asked dozens of times and you refuse to answer. Seems 595.19 answers it.


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How sad you have to resort to lying again. *I've already answered that question * in post #2913.

And you're (not y-o-u-r) especially retarded to _think_ some random attornies you found in cyberspace (some arguing different points than you, others not even practicing in Iowa), know Iowa law better than the state of Iowa.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Of course you would call experts wrong......

You also think dick on dick is normal


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Drools the forum pervert. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And the state of Iowa trumps the opinion of attornies posting on blogs.

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Pervert? You think dick on dick is fun. Go ahead and call heterosexuals perverts all you want, we normals know you oddballs think we are perverts. 

Says a lot about you. 

But I've discredited you so many times on this thread it's pathetic.


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, I don't think _"dick on dick"_ is fun but I can't stop you from posting your gay fantasies on the forum. And you've discredited nothing. All you've done is protest that some lawyers you found on blogs think the state of Iowa is wrong when the state says consanguineous marriages are not allowed regardless of gender.

Your whiney protests are not proof. Proof would be you showing a single case where such a couple actually got married in Iowa within the last six years. But as we've established -- you can't find even one single such couple.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nothing is proof to a delusional dick lover. Not the Iowa Law, not 5 legal experts. 

That dancing dude? Looks like one of the village people, the group you fantasize about fluffing. 

Dude, admit you're gay, it should not be such a horrible thing to someone as obviously in love with the idea as you are.


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You just can't stop fantasizing about men having sex with each other, can you, pervert?

Your disgusting fetishes aside, you have yet to produce a single attorney who proves Iowa doesn't know what they're talking about when they insist in order to qualify for a marriage license, the registering couple cannot be _"closely related by blood or first cousins"_


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



5 did and you are simply delusional. 

Why would I care how many all male gangbangs you've been in. And I see you still have the dancing Village People person as your favorite animated character!


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Wow, you're really obsessed with men having sex with each other. Look at you, drooling over the thought of it. 

And no attorneys proved Iowa doesn't know what they're talking about when they say marriage licenses are not given to couples who are _"closely related by blood or first cousins"_. And you certainly haven't proven it since you can't find one single such couple, *out of a quarter of a billion eligible people*, who got married in six years.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 22, 2015)

LOL- this thread still going on?

So how many siblings have been married so far this year in Iowa?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again with the logical falicy.

I've proven.....

1. It's legal

2. You're Gay and delusional

3. You think heterosexuality is perverted.


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


1. Iowa says it's not ... *Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* . . . *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; ... Why on Earth would I take your word for it over Iowa's??  Again, you can't find a single consanguineous marriage to take place in Iowa over a six year period with a pool of quarter of a billion eligible people.

2. You're deranged. As already stated, I'm a heterosexual man, married to a  heterosexual woman. You're the one who doesn't stop posting his homoerotic fantasies on the forum.

3. See #2.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The definition of closely related is found in Iowa code 595.19 GayFaun, none are same sex.

As for #2. Being a closeted gay male just shows how delusional you really are.


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Iowa still says gender plays no role in marriages in their state, no matter how hard you stomp your feet to the contrary... *Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* . . . *not closely related by blood or first cousins*;



Pop23 said:


> As for #2. Being a closeted gay male just shows how delusional you really are.


Hisses the forum pervert who can't stop sharing his homoerotic fantasies on the forum.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Only a gay man would make such a statement.

Proving again GayFaun, you are one.

And Iowa code 595.19 does not prohibit same sex individuals from marriage, regardless of how closely related they are.


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Your projections continue to fail you, perv.

And Iowa does indeed prohibit such marriages...

*State of Iowa*
*Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 22, 2015)

Nope they don't GayFaun. 

Iowa 595.19 and 5 legal experts so say


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nope they don't GayFaun.
> 
> Iowa 595.19 and 5 legal experts so say


Iowa is still laughing at you. So's my wife.

*State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions*​
_IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!_

*Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are* (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) *not closely related by blood or first cousins*; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Nope they don't GayFaun.
> ...



And again you refuse to list what iowa defines as closely blood related GayFaun. 

Iowa code 595.19 does however and none are same sex. 

Oh, GayFaun, 5 legal experts agree, and you? No supporting evidence.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Here are 30 counties in Iowa who say consanguineous marriages are not allowed, regardless of gender. You're gonna need more lawyers, perv23...

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you still believe that step parents are allowed to marry stepchildren in Iowa. 

You truly are not only a self identifying heterosexual, you are one perverted individual.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Of course not.



Pop23 said:


> You truly are not only a self identifying heterosexual, you are one perverted individual.


Slobbers the forum pervert who thinks brothers should marry each other.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Liar, find the post where I said brothers should Marry. You lie to cover your perverted assertion that marriage has a qualification that the participants must have sex. Therefor in your perverted mind you believe in marital rape as well as your perverted assertion that all siblings must want to have sex with each other. No one could possibly simply want to unite in a contract for simple financial benefit according to PervGayFaun.

Your link only prohibits blood relatives from marrying, so you believe step parents have the right to marry stepchildren, right? They are not blood related now are they PervGayFaun?


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It's virtually all you post about, perv23. And as you've been told many times, that link is not exhaustive. Hell, even you finally admitted step-parents aren't allowed to marry their step-children.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then it would be no problem to provide the quote, would it LiarGayPervFaun?

I've ALWAYS pointed out to your twisted perverted logic that Iowa code 595 prohibits affinity marriage (you understand affinity, right) which prohibit step parents marrying step children.

Your argument is that your link is superior to Iowa's actual code. Makes you look the fool.

Oh, and by the way I've produced 5 legal experts that back my case up. You?  A bunch of links that would lead anyone reading them that your perverted reasoning would allow affinity marriage.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Look how uppity the forum pervert gets when hoisted on his own petard.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The POS LyingGayPervertFAUN makes claims he/she/it (whatever it self identifies as today) can't support with a quote even though it says I post it often. 

Well pervert, put up or shut up. Post a link to where you claim I said brothers SHOULD marry. 

Pervert can't. Proving he/she/it is a dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're too funny. You demand that as though words have any meaning to you; or as if you even understand them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But sure, I'll post that link right after you post links confirming some of the lies you have told. Starting with your claim that family members would marry each other for financial gain .... post a link to even one such couple actually did......


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 23, 2015)

Shouldn't you two get a room? This love fest has gone on enough.

Though since we all know Pops is a whiny girl and Faun is flaming gay.....


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your logical falicy is catching up to you. I've never stated any have (another lie by LyingGayPervFaun)

Provide the link, or this is simply another lie by our forum liar.

I have stated that it's legal, and have posted link after link after link to legal experts that confirm that.

So keep dancing you lying POS. We all see it gay boy.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You said people would.

Prove it.......


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You've been challenged to link to where I posted that Brothers should Marry each other.  So far you've failed that challenge even after you doubled down by stating I said it many times, which should make finding one a friggin piece of cake.

You are in no position to demand anything until you provide either A: proof of me making that absurd statement, or B: Admit the lie.

Well? We're all waiting


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Cries the forum pervert who refuses to prove his claim that family members would marry each other.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Cries the confirmed liar.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Such a coward

TrannyFaun runs from its own words. 

That's what lying cowards do


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Spits the forum pervert who refuses to prove his own claims. 

You don't like getting hoisted with your own petard, huh?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says the tranny coward. So sure of his lie it doubled downed claiming I said something many many times, which would make it extremely easy to find, Right? But trannyFaun can't produce.

Such is the story of TrannyFauns life I guess. Got his panties in a knot


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I love the irony. The forum pervert demands others prove things when she herself refuses to.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



See TrannyFaun run like the coward it is. 

You were challenged and ran. The forum coward produces zilch. 

Go wash your bras out. 

You are my bitch until you provide the link where I said brothers should Marry each other. 

You can't?  

Then get me a sammie you cross dressing bitch.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Right backatcha, perv. You were challenged and you ran. You said it same-sex siblings would marry each other..... so prove it.......

Instead, you run from doing so as fast as your walker will allow.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Poor dipshit crossdressing GayFaun. Got caught in a lie it doubled down on then makes demands of others.

What? Panties don't fit right this morning TrannyFaun? That's because they ain't meant to fit on folks with balls.

What's that you say? They fit fine? Maybe you should grow a pair and find at least one time that I said brothers should Marry. Remember? You said I made the statement many many times. Should be a piece of cake. Or maybe you can't because it never happened, confirming that you are a pathological liar. 

WeaselFaun can't find a singe one. Now get me that sammie bitch.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 24, 2015)

I've never been afraid of gay people

Live and let live


----------



## Faun (Nov 24, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oh, nooo's.... the forum pervert, who can't stop talking about brothers marrying each other ... who can't stop fantasizing about men sucking other mens' cocks ... is now playing the victim card as an excuse not to prove her claims.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



TrannyFaun got caught lying and now he hides behind his gay lifestyle. 

Too funny TrannyFaun. Of course you can back up you're words by actually supplying a link (you said there were many) of me stating brothers should Marry?

No??????

Proving once again TrannyFaun is a pathological liar. 

But we all knew that already.


----------



## Faun (Nov 24, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Get ready to watch the forum pervert's head explode as she's once again hoisted with her own petard...

Find the post where I said I am gay... or once again expose yourself to be the lying pervert the forum recognizes you to be.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




When you're a proven liar, which I've done thoroughly, one can only assume you lie about everything. So when you claim to be a hetro, everyone can assume you, a pathological liar, is actually gay.

See the problem with lying?

And it is amusing how you, a gay rights advocate, is insulted by the implication that you are gay.

Shouldn't actually cause you pause whatsoever.

So, deliver that link to where you claim I said many, many times that brothers should Marry each other, or continue your pathological lying.

It's your choice. No doubt you will continue drooling all over that pretty dress you're wearing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 24, 2015)

*Moderation Message:

Not going back and checking where this thread went off the rails. 
But the 2 people left in the discussion need to be aware that this multi-page exchange is 
considered thread derailment. Dont' do this.. *


----------

