It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

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!

It never backs up what it claims. Get ready for its dance to begin

'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]

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!

It never backs up what it claims. Get ready for its dance to begin

'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?

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]

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

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'!

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

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

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.

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]

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!

It never backs up what it claims. Get ready for its dance to begin

'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?

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

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]

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

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'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

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.

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.

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]

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

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'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

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.

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.

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]

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

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'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

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.

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.

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.

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]

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

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'!

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

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

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.

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]

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

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'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

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.

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.

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!

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]

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'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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]

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'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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]

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

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'!

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

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

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.

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.....

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]

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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]

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'!

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

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

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.

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.....

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.

What I did again was to show that it's you, not me, talking about incest.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

Deflection noted. Find the couple denied a license. Remember it IS YOUR QUSLIFICATION 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!

A family seeking to marry each other where that is forbidden doesn't make news.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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!

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.

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?

Deflection noted. Find the couple denied a license. Remember it IS YOUR QUSLIFICATION 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!

A family seeking to marry each other where that is forbidden doesn't make news.

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]

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

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

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.

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.....

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.

What I did again was to show that it's you, not me, talking about incest.

And by logical extension you find marital rape acceptable

Scumbag

 

[Faun]

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

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.

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.....

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.

What I did again was to show that it's you, not me, talking about incest.

And by logical extension you find marital rape acceptable

Scumbag

By extension of your perverted, deranged mind, perhaps.

 

[Montrovant]

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'!

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

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

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.

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.....

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.

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]

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!

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.

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!