DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[WinterBorn]

Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?

Of course not.

For the 756th time: laws banning marriage between brother and sister are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, the state can provide evidence in support of its ban on brother/sister marriage, and such bans are enacted absent animus.

That is not the case with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage law.

What a bunch of horse shit you are depriving one group the right too marriage while allowing another group the benefit of the right too marriage. Simply put if you give one group a right you must give all groups the same right.

This slippery slope argument is no more valid now that it was before.

It is even worse than the "Are people being arrested for it?" argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its ‘sodomy’ laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.

Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?

Pointless, and a sad attempt at manipulation using an idea that does not exist. Gays are not seeking to make anything other than gay marriage legal. You do not need to make incest legal to make gay marriage legal. if you want to make an argument to marry your sister or brother than please make it in a new place.

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why did you delete part of my post?

I didn't. You must have gone back and added that. I quoted it as you posted it the first time.

Not that it would have mattered. I am not limiting myself to yes or no answers when there is more I wish to say.

Yes you did remove part of my post. Go back and look.

I see where you added that I didn't have to do more than answer yes or no. I didn't delete anything, I just clicked on the

icon and replied. You must have edited it after you posted the first part.


As I said, it doesn't matter because I would not have limited myself to a simple yes or no answer.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?

Pointless, and a sad attempt at manipulation using an idea that does not exist. Gays are not seeking to make anything other than gay marriage legal. You do not need to make incest legal to make gay marriage legal. if you want to make an argument to marry your sister or brother than please make it in a new place.

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

I guess we will argue that when gay marriage is made legal and some brother & sister try to get married. Or brother and brother try to get married.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course not.

For the 756th time: laws banning marriage between brother and sister are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, the state can provide evidence in support of its ban on brother/sister marriage, and such bans are enacted absent animus.

That is not the case with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage law.

What a bunch of horse shit you are depriving one group the right too marriage while allowing another group the benefit of the right too marriage. Simply put if you give one group a right you must give all groups the same right.

This slippery slope argument is no more valid now that it was before.

It is even worse than the "Are people being arrested for it?" argument.

What slippery slope argument? Rights are rights you can't allow one group a certain right while restricting other groups from the same right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pointless, and a sad attempt at manipulation using an idea that does not exist. Gays are not seeking to make anything other than gay marriage legal. You do not need to make incest legal to make gay marriage legal. if you want to make an argument to marry your sister or brother than please make it in a new place.

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

I guess we will argue that when gay marriage is made legal and some brother & sister try to get married.

You can't give a certain group a special right without including all groups. It would be a violation of their rights if same sex marriage is a right.

 

[WinterBorn]

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

I guess we will argue that when gay marriage is made legal and some brother & sister try to get married.

You can't give a certain group a special right without including all groups. It would be a violation of their rights if same sex marriage is a right.

Unless you are going to start arguing in favor of incestuous marriages, I doubt you will get much debate here on this topic.

Most people will probably see it as a diversion from the other lines of conversation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.

That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.

If you read this what would it mean if it was used to limit the scope of Lawrence?


And then we have this in the last paragraph of what I quoted

The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence.

What would that mean?

That it did not weigh in on matters concerning minors, prostitution, the mentally incompetent, or by use of force. The sentence you quote does not mean the Court did not weigh in on the basic anti-sodomy laws. It clearly did.

People can still be arrested and if they were unlawfully arrested why haven't we seen a lot of civil suits against police departments?

 

[SillyWabbit]

Yes, the article did say that. It said they were being arrested despite the SCOTUS ruling that technically invalidated the anti-sodomy laws. So people are being arrested for violating invalid laws. People being arrested is not the benchmark for whether something is illegal.

Why did you delete part of my post?

I didn't. You must have gone back and added that. I quoted it as you posted it the first time.

Not that it would have mattered. I am not limiting myself to yes or no answers when there is more I wish to say.

I would offer you a drink, but I think both you and I are toasted.

Plus there are oxtails and greens in the pot. The best I can do for you--it's my favorite--is:

You should smell the pot stewing. I ain't bullshit'n neither.



Did I say that?

 

[WinterBorn]

And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its ‘sodomy’ laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.

Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?

Of course not.

For the 756th time: laws banning marriage between brother and sister are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, the state can provide evidence in support of its ban on brother/sister marriage, and such bans are enacted absent animus.

That is not the case with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage law.

This is a pretty good explanation of why the incest marriages are not the same as gay marriages. They are banned equally across the board.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I guess we will argue that when gay marriage is made legal and some brother & sister try to get married.

You can't give a certain group a special right without including all groups. It would be a violation of their rights if same sex marriage is a right.

Unless you are going to start arguing in favor of incestuous marriages, I doubt you will get much debate here on this topic.

Most people will probably see it as a diversion from the other lines of conversation.

If same sex marriage is a right then all forms of marriages is a right. You cannot allow one group that right without allowing all groups that may want it the same right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why did you delete part of my post?

I didn't. You must have gone back and added that. I quoted it as you posted it the first time.

Not that it would have mattered. I am not limiting myself to yes or no answers when there is more I wish to say.

I would offer you a drink, but I think both you and I are toasted.

Plus there are oxtails and greens in the pot. The best I can do for you--it's my favorite--is:

You should smell the pot stewing. I ain't bullshit'n neither.



Did I say that?

Oxtails & greens?? If I bring a pan of cornbread, can I come for dinner???

 

[WinterBorn]

You can't give a certain group a special right without including all groups. It would be a violation of their rights if same sex marriage is a right.

Unless you are going to start arguing in favor of incestuous marriages, I doubt you will get much debate here on this topic.

Most people will probably see it as a diversion from the other lines of conversation.

If same sex marriage is a right then all forms of marriages is a right. You cannot allow one group that right without allowing all groups that may want it the same right.

No, that is not right. Gays are discriminated against because of gender and sexual orientation. There is no such discrimination against incestuous marriages, because all are banned.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?

Of course not.

For the 756th time: laws banning marriage between brother and sister are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, the state can provide evidence in support of its ban on brother/sister marriage, and such bans are enacted absent animus.

That is not the case with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage law.

This is a pretty good explanation of why the incest marriages are not the same as gay marriages. They are banned equally across the board.

Dancing with the star's has just found their first same sex dancing team. holy shit can yall keep this spin and duck going? A right is a right. period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unless you are going to start arguing in favor of incestuous marriages, I doubt you will get much debate here on this topic.

Most people will probably see it as a diversion from the other lines of conversation.

If same sex marriage is a right then all forms of marriages is a right. You cannot allow one group that right without allowing all groups that may want it the same right.

No, that is not right. Gays are discriminated against because of gender and sexual orientation. There is no such discrimination against incestuous marriages, because all are banned.

Yes it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?

Pointless, and a sad attempt at manipulation using an idea that does not exist. Gays are not seeking to make anything other than gay marriage legal. You do not need to make incest legal to make gay marriage legal. if you want to make an argument to marry your sister or brother than please make it in a new place.

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

Brothers and sisters do not constitute a class of persons as do homosexuals; unlike homosexuals, there is no history of brothers and sisters being systematically discriminated against by the states:

The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[SillyWabbit]

I didn't. You must have gone back and added that. I quoted it as you posted it the first time.

Not that it would have mattered. I am not limiting myself to yes or no answers when there is more I wish to say.

I would offer you a drink, but I think both you and I are toasted.

Plus there are oxtails and greens in the pot. The best I can do for you--it's my favorite--is:

You should smell the pot stewing. I ain't bullshit'n neither.



Did I say that?

Oxtails & greens?? If I bring a pan of cornbread, can I come for dinner???

It's rice. If you bring a pan of cornbread maybe you'll be welcome.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course not.

For the 756th time: laws banning marriage between brother and sister are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, the state can provide evidence in support of its ban on brother/sister marriage, and such bans are enacted absent animus.

That is not the case with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage law.

This is a pretty good explanation of why the incest marriages are not the same as gay marriages. They are banned equally across the board.

Dancing with the star's has just found their first same sex dancing team. holy shit can yall keep this spin and duck going? A right is a right. period.

And the "Are people being arrested for it?" was not a dance around whether sodomy is illegal? You were shown the ruling of SCOTUS and what it meant. But you still danced.

The comment I posted (based on C Clayton Jones' comment) is not dancing. The basis for most lawsuits for gay marriage is that there is a constitutional right to equality.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pointless, and a sad attempt at manipulation using an idea that does not exist. Gays are not seeking to make anything other than gay marriage legal. You do not need to make incest legal to make gay marriage legal. if you want to make an argument to marry your sister or brother than please make it in a new place.

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

Brothers and sisters do not constitute a class of persons as do homosexuals; unlike homosexuals, there is no history of brothers and sisters being systematically discriminated against by the states:

The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Brothers and sisters do not constitute a class of persons as do homosexuals; unlike homosexuals,

I am not following you are you saying brothers and sisters are not people just like gays?

Dude your post is nothing but double talk brothers and sisters have been restricted from marriage long before gay's came about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a pretty good explanation of why the incest marriages are not the same as gay marriages. They are banned equally across the board.

Dancing with the star's has just found their first same sex dancing team. holy shit can yall keep this spin and duck going? A right is a right. period.

And the "Are people being arrested for it?" was not a dance around whether sodomy is illegal? You were shown the ruling of SCOTUS and what it meant. But you still danced.

The comment I posted (based on C Clayton Jones' comment) is not dancing. The basis for most lawsuits for gay marriage is that there is a constitutional right to equality.

And the "Are people being arrested for it?" was not a dance around whether sodomy is illegal? You were shown the ruling of SCOTUS and what it meant. But you still danced.

I'm not the one that's saying one group should have a right but restricting another group from that same right, you two dancing queens are.