Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Pop23]

Traditional marriage bla bla bla.

For centuries traditional marriage has been one many with many wives, or men wh child brides .

And who really cares about gay marriage ? It's more freedom !

And same sex siblings also, right?

 

[Pop23]

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.

Your argument is shown even more without merit.

Then go challenge the law if you you are so offended by it.

Nothing stops you.

Except standing in the case. See, I'm married.

You're also argued for polygamy. You could kill two birds with one stone.

I mean, if you weren't just trolling.

Nah, I don't want to marry another. So my case would be based on a lie.

So, simpleton, now whatcha got?

 

[Timmy]

Traditional marriage bla bla bla.

For centuries traditional marriage has been one many with many wives, or men wh child brides .

And who really cares about gay marriage ? It's more freedom !

And same sex siblings also, right?

If two consenting adults want to marry, so what? I think the incest thing comes from fear of deformed kids . Not even sure if that's scientifically accurate .

 

[Skylar]

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.

Your argument is shown even more without merit.

We haven't had incest marriage or polygamy. Making your 'implications' merely baseless opinion signifying nothing.

And contradicted perfectly by history.

And (cuz you're a nazi), 20 years ago there was no same sex marriage.

Nor was there an Ipod Nano 20 years ago. But your assumption was that same sex marriage legalizes incest marriage and polygamy.

Neither of which is actually true. Nor has history backed, with nothing you've insisted must happen....ever actually happening.

And its this profound difference between what you assume and what reality actually indicates where your argument collapse into sad little pieces. As it demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Never is a long time dummy.

From then, when same sex marriage was first legalized to now...its never happened. Nothing you've insisted must happen....has.

Your record of failure is perfect. Clearly there's something you missed.

And saying something will not happen is a simpletons argument unless you answer this:

What is the Compelling State Interest in denying an individual the right to marry whomever he/she chooses.

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Iceweasel]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Well you have the right to go argue your right to marry your 3 brothers in court.

Meanwhile- in the real world- you have your own opinion- citing your own opinion, spoken from firmly within your rectum.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. The fact is that there's no reason to deny 3 brothers marrying except societal norms. Exactly what you assholes scream about until you get your way. Once you have a favorable law, the law is the law, period.

It's typical of leftists, dishonest, inconsistent and self righteous.

 

[Seawytch]

These bigots, I swear. Marriage rights have historically been granted by the courts. Loving, Zablocki, Turner v Safely...but when the gheys do it...well.

 

[Skylar]

Traditional marriage bla bla bla.

For centuries traditional marriage has been one many with many wives, or men wh child brides .

And who really cares about gay marriage ? It's more freedom !

Its one of those issues that's amusing......in that those who oppose it aren't effected by it.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

There's no argument against it. That's the point. You're just denying people equal rights that love each other. Bigot.

 

[Skylar]

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

There's no argument against it. That's the point. You're just denying people equal rights that love each other. Bigot.

That's why you want incest and polygamy to be legalized?

 

[Seawytch]

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

There's no argument against it. That's the point. You're just denying people equal rights that love each other. Bigot.

Then there never was and that was not charged by the recent ruling. File your case.

 

[Skylar]

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

There's no argument against it. That's the point. You're just denying people equal rights that love each other. Bigot.

Then there never was and that was not charged by the recent ruling. File your case.

Sounds like a perfect time for Weasel to bag his mom. Or hell, even a brother.

 

[Silhouette]

If two consenting adults want to marry, so what? I think the incest thing comes from fear of deformed kids . Not even sure if that's scientifically accurate .

I run a breeding farm and I can assure you it's scientifically accurate. In fact most of a rancher's records on breeding strive to keep inbreeding to a base minimum because offspring predictably are deformed, lack thrift, become ill and die more often than hybrid stock.

If two consenting adults want to marry, children have an interest in who they are. They were barred from the table when the recent radical proposal to that contract change was Heard and approved. Contract case law will provide them with a remedy.

 

[Pop23]

We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.

Your argument is shown even more without merit.

We haven't had incest marriage or polygamy. Making your 'implications' merely baseless opinion signifying nothing.

And contradicted perfectly by history.

And (cuz you're a nazi), 20 years ago there was no same sex marriage.

Nor was there an Ipod Nano 20 years ago. But your assumption was that same sex marriage legalizes incest marriage and polygamy.

Neither of which is actually true. Nor has history backed, with nothing you've insisted must happen....ever actually happening.

And its this profound difference between what you assume and what reality actually indicates where your argument collapse into sad little pieces. As it demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Never is a long time dummy.

From then, when same sex marriage was first legalized to now...its never happened. Nothing you've insisted must happen....has.

Your record of failure is perfect. Clearly there's something you missed.

And saying something will not happen is a simpletons argument unless you answer this:

What is the Compelling State Interest in denying an individual the right to marry whomever he/she chooses.

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

 

[Skylar]

If two consenting adults want to marry, so what? I think the incest thing comes from fear of deformed kids . Not even sure if that's scientifically accurate .

I run a breeding farm and I can assure you it's scientifically accurate. In fact most of a rancher's records on breeding strive to keep inbreeding to a base minimum because offspring lack thrift, become ill and die more often than hybrid stock.

If two consenting adults want to marry, children have an interest in who they are. They were barred from the table when the recent radical proposal to that contract change was Heard and approved. Contract case law will provide them with a remedy.

Again, denying same sex marriage doesn't magically make same sex parents into opposite sex parents. It merely guarentees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts these children.

Your proposal only harms and humiliates children. It doesn't help any of them. And you already know this. Which is what makes your advocacy of your position so....loathsome.

Your proposal fails your own standards.

 

[Timmy]

If two consenting adults want to marry, so what? I think the incest thing comes from fear of deformed kids . Not even sure if that's scientifically accurate .

I run a breeding farm and I can assure you it's scientifically accurate. In fact most of a rancher's records on breeding strive to keep inbreeding to a base minimum because offspring predictably are deformed, lack thrift, become ill and die more often than hybrid stock.

If two consenting adults want to marry, children have an interest in who they are. They were barred from the table when the recent radical proposal to that contract change was Heard and approved. Contract case law will provide them with a remedy.

Children have never had a say. Lots of douchebags keep having kids . Can't stop them.

Let me ask . If two people have one of those recessive disease genes. Should they not be allowed to marry? Wouldn't thier kids face being born wh the disease ?

 

[martybegan]

They felt that making the cake was participating in a ceremony they find sinful. Is that true or false?

What relevance do their 'feelings' have to do with the law? Is the law based on their 'feelings'?

Nope. Your 'legal standard' isn't. You're offering us what you think the case was SUPPOSED to be based on rather than what it actually was.

Sigh....citing yourself. Do you have any argument that isn't you citing you? Because your source is clearly inadequate to carry your argument.

What right does government have in deciding how a person exercises their religion, unless such exercise causes actual harm?

Causes harm....according to who? Again, Marty......you keep backing on subjective, Marty-defined piece of pseudo-legal gibberish ANOTHER piece of Marty-defined pseudo-legal gibberish.

Where YOU define what harm is, where YOU define what infringement is, where YOU define what constitutional rights are, YOU define what the law allows, make up whatever standard YOU wish (laughing....your predictably abandoned 'feelings' standard, for example), where YOU decide which supreme court rulings are valid or invalid.

And you don't do any of that. Your argument requires that you do all of that.

I ask again, do you have any argument that isn't you citing yourself?

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

Yup. And they have no legal relevance. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

What you don't have a 'right' to for our laws to be based on whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you invent. And that's where your argument fails: as neither our laws nor their validity are based on your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is all you have. You aren't nearly enough to carry your argument. As I don't accept any of your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity. None of your made up definitions, none of your made up standards, none of your dismissal of any case that is inconvenient to you.

And without that acceptance...you've got nothing.

I got you to waste 3 minutes on this post, crying about how mean I am to not change my mind due to your "compelling" arguments.

And strict constructional federalism isn't gibberish, its just something you don't like, and thus you have to dismiss it out of hand.

Nothing I am talking about is made up, it has its basis on a a combination of several lines of thought on the concepts of law, constitution, and rights.

 

[Pop23]

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

There's no argument against it. That's the point. You're just denying people equal rights that love each other. Bigot.

Then there never was and that was not charged by the recent ruling. File your case.

Sure it changed. The exclussion of all siblings is now arbitrarily applied. Know of any same sex siblings that had a child through intercourse?

I don't.

 

[Pop23]

If two consenting adults want to marry, so what? I think the incest thing comes from fear of deformed kids . Not even sure if that's scientifically accurate .

I run a breeding farm and I can assure you it's scientifically accurate. In fact most of a rancher's records on breeding strive to keep inbreeding to a base minimum because offspring predictably are deformed, lack thrift, become ill and die more often than hybrid stock.

If two consenting adults want to marry, children have an interest in who they are. They were barred from the table when the recent radical proposal to that contract change was Heard and approved. Contract case law will provide them with a remedy.

Children have never had a say. Lots of douchebags keep having kids . Can't stop them.

Let me ask . If two people have one of those recessive disease genes. Should they not be allowed to marry? Wouldn't thier kids face being born wh the disease ?

Is this couple same sex? Oops

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

I don't have to quote, I don't have to cite, I don't really even have to explain to you. You can accept or reject my positions, but you cannot think that you will not be called out on yours.

deal with it.

Then why pretend to debate?

Why not make drive-by statements of opinion and leave it at that?

You silly fool! This is not about your rights or the constitution. It's about agreed to rules on argument and debate

 

[martybegan]

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD ARGUE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SET UP TO DIVINE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

Poor political arguments make for lousy law

how about you read the post I was responding to before you respond?

Dumbass.

Purely political arguments make for bad law. Dante responded to a political argument

Dante should still follow the advice above.