If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Syriusly]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

If you are now calling it a strawman, then you indict your position prior to Obergfell.

MAKING YOU A COWARD!

Being called a 'coward' by you is like being called a liar by Donald Trump- its an honor.

You want me to address a specific argument- then make that specific argument.

 

[Pop23]

Unless you can answer the questions, then there is no question the relationships are valid. You could before Obergfell, you can't now. Give it a shot.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I am not sure why you think anyone here has any obligation to defend state laws against polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.

Neither Loving or Obergefell changed the Constitutionality of either.

If you think that either should be Constitutional- then logically you should have thought they should be Constitutional before Obergefell and before Loving.

BUT YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE CHANGE. Loving HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODIFICATION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SAME SEX. OBERGFELL DID!

Oh I can defend Obergefell- if you want me to defend Obergefell I am glad to.

yes- Loving had nothing to do with same gender marriage.
And Obergefell had nothing to do with opposite gender marriage.

Both though revolved around the state being unable to provide a compelling state interest in restricting marriages based on gender- or on race.

And by the way- in both cases- the States claimed that the laws were in part to 'protect children'- and in both cases the courts said- no.

Then you easily can answer the posed question, Right?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Actually I can. Because I have read the court cases.

But I won't- because I am not dancing with your straw man.

You've read Obergfell and it's challenge of "Compelling State Interest"

I am asking the same. YOU CAN'T ANSWER!

So again:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

 

[Pop23]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

It eliminated any pretense to marriage and procreation. So, yes it did.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

 

[buttercup]

Who gives a shit what pedophiles and faggots say?

As everybody knows, as we've always known except for a brief and glorious couple of decades which are blessedly drawing to a close now, fags and baby rapers are CRAZY. They're MENTALLY ILL. If they can't make it in our world without forcing other people to kowtow to them and their depravity, then institutionalize them. Problem solved.

First off, what in the motherfuck?

Secondly, I was responding to the guy who said that homosexual desire is a choice. The test is to determine whether hetero is a choice. Having pedo desires is probably not a choice.

You think I'm a guy? Ha ha. I would've thought my screenname gives away that I'm a girl. Secondly, I didn't claim that homosexual desire is a choice. (I also didn't claim it wasn't.) Go back and read my post, all I said was that the claim that one can't change their sexual desires doesn't in and of itself make it natural or healthy.

One thing is indisputable, acting on a particular sexual desire is a choice.

As for your reply in post #1359, it's a false comparison, because heterosexuality is the default. It is natural, and as politically incorrect as this may sound, it is normal. No, we don't choose to be straight, we just are because it is – as long as nothing goes wrong – the way humankind was designed to be. So again, it is a false comparison.

 

[Pop23]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

If you are now calling it a strawman, then you indict your position prior to Obergfell.

MAKING YOU A COWARD!

Being called a 'coward' by you is like being called a liar by Donald Trump- its an honor.

You want me to address a specific argument- then make that specific argument.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Pop23]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

It eliminated any pretense to marriage and procreation. So, yes it did.

No- Obergefell did not.

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

 

[Syriusly]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

 

[Pop23]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

It eliminated any pretense to marriage and procreation. So, yes it did.

No- Obergefell did not.

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

Coward. Say and do are two completely different concepts.

We have established you understand the concept of the State Compelling Interest. So simply answer the question:



"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Pop23]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

It eliminated any pretense to marriage and procreation. So, yes it did.

No- Obergefell did not.

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

Coward. Say and do are two completely different concepts.

We have established you understand the concept of the State Compelling Interest. So simply answer the question:



"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

Oh, I agree.

BUT until Obergefell, they had no precedent from the SCOTUS analyzing state marriage laws for a compelling state interest in denying a non-traditional marriage.

Now they do.

And, the same reasoning applies. And, I am glad the Court did extend marriage to same-sex couples.

My only complaint is their politically-motivated, statist reach-around method of getting there, when “marriage is a contract” would have taken care of ALL that shit and left government out of the fucking loop.

 

[Syriusly]

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Okay- I will take pity on you- since you seem unable to actually able to make an argument- and I will make your argument for you- and if you agree that is what you mean- I will debate you on it:

Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Is that the argument you are trying to make Poppy?

 

[Syriusly]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

Oh, I agree.

BUT until Obergefell, they had no precedent from the SCOTUS analyzing state marriage laws for a compelling state interest in denying a non-traditional marriage.

Now they do. .

Certainly they did. Obergefell was merely the fourth type of marriage law that the Supreme Court overturned.

First was Loving v. Virginia- and yes- Virginia did argue that mixed race marriages were not 'normal', not 'traditional' and that they had a compelling state interest in preventing them.

There were two other cases- one was about state regulations that denied inmates marriage and another that denied marriage to people who owed child support.

Marrying an inmate in prison isn't exactly 'traditional marriage' either.

 

[Pop23]

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

It eliminated any pretense to marriage and procreation. So, yes it did.

No- Obergefell did not.

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

Coward. Say and do are two completely different concepts.

We have established you understand the concept of the State Compelling Interest. So simply answer the question:



"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

The argument is not what it says, it's the effect it has on the law.

Prior to Obergfell, you could easily make the Compelling State interest argument, and answering these would be a piece of cake:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

After Obergfell, the answers are not easy, hell they're impossible to answer and not admit the cause is Obergfell

It creates a paradox and a conflict. And the law hates Paradox and Conflict.

LOL, as if this wasn't expressed earlier.

AND YOU CAN'T ANSWER

Priceless

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, fuck everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

 

[Pop23]

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Okay- I will take pity on you- since you seem unable to actually able to make an argument- and I will make your argument for you- and if you agree that is what you mean- I will debate you on it:

Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Is that the argument you are trying to make Poppy?

You have two questions on the table that you have yet to answer. Answer those first and we can move forward.

They are:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Pop23]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

Oh, I agree.

BUT until Obergefell, they had no precedent from the SCOTUS analyzing state marriage laws for a compelling state interest in denying a non-traditional marriage.

Now they do.

And, the same reasoning applies. And, I am glad the Court did extend marriage to same-sex couples.

My only complaint is their politically-motivated, statist reach-around method of getting there, when “marriage is a contract” would have taken care of ALL that shit and left government out of the fucking loop.

YEP. But they want a fairy tale that simply does not exist and they are too damn vain to admit it.