It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're fucking deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused.

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act.

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

Like I said... you're fucking deranged.

I'm explaining why they're not allowed ... you're the one wondering why they're not...

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

I asked and no one ever gave a sufficient answer... just that it's not currently legal. I am not wondering why, I know why, you don't seem to know. The reason is very simple. Up until the recent SCOTUS ruling, you didn't have the right to not be discriminated against based on your sexuality. We have many laws which discriminate based on your sexual behavior. These will now begin to be challenged. It hasn't happened yet, it's coming soon. As soon as those laws start to fall, those people will push for their right to legitimize their relationships through marriage just as homosexuals did. They will use your very SAME arguments.

Yes, we have laws regarding sexual behavior. Why do you assume that a)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be challenged and b)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be struck? That is the problem with your arguments.

You are, again, comparing homosexuality to various illegal acts. You also have not explained how, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity and because of that, marriage can now be defined by sexual proclivities, having marriage limited to heterosexuals does not do the same thing, since heterosexuality would also be a sexual proclivity.

You can argue that the state has no compelling interest in preventing bestiality or pedophiles or any other non-consensual relationships. I'm pretty damned certain that the courts will disagree. The fact that same sex marriage is now legal, or that homosexuality is itself is legal, in no way changes the arguments against non-consensual relationships. One need not be religious to see the potential harm in a sexual relationship with someone unable to consent to that relationship.

Oh, and pedophiles and zoophiles actually can get married. They just cannot marry a person or animal which is unable to legally enter into a marriage contract, which includes anything unable to give legal consent. In order to jump to bans on those sorts of marriages being ruled unconstitutional, not only would the age of consent to enter into the relationships need to change, so would the very nature of contract law.

Yes, homosexual acts are only 12 years removed from being illegal in some places. However, that was consensual homosexual acts. The ruling against sodomy laws had no effect on age of consent laws. Why would same sex marriage laws do so?

 

[Montrovant]

It's about equality.

You're right... NOW it is! It's about sexuality being equal under the law. And the sexuality you find offensive or unacceptable has equal rights to the same laws. That's the part you are failing to realize because you're either a moron who doesn't comprehend "equal protection" or you're living in a hypocritical world of denial.

You are the one who seems to have trouble with equal protection and the way the courts handle it. I'm not sure how you can worry about pedophilia becoming legal under equal protection and claim any real understanding. "But consent laws can be changed!" That's true, but the fact that same sex marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional was in no way based on and has no effect on consent laws. If those laws are changed, then you can argue equal access and equal protection. It is only your own paranoia that assumes they will be.

 

[Montrovant]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with.

This has nothing to do with consent laws.. incidentally, the very same consent laws which once made homosexuality illegal. Those can be changed very easily and they already vary from state to state.

Consent laws made homosexuality illegal? Really? I'd like to see the relevant statutes which said that sodomy was a crime because one or both parties were unable to consent to sexual relations.

Once more, you seem to have an issue with consent.

 

[Montrovant]

No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.

And no one was allowed to marry the same gender... the law was applied equally.

Your point again?

Women were allowed to marry men. Men were denied that right based on their gender. Men were allowed to marry women. Women were denied that right based on their gender.

I understand the argument that the law was already applied equally. I understand disagreeing with the court's decision. Hell, as a 5-4 decision, the court itself was obviously split. However, none of that means that other types of marriage are automatically allowed.

I didn't say all other kinds of marriage are automatically allowed. Did I?

This is what you said :

No, I did not compare them to anything. I've given examples of some other sexual proclivities (and that's what homosexuality is) which can now lobby for their rights, come out of the closet, demand that they be given the same legitimacy under the law... and we have no choice but to allow it, if we are going to remain true to the Constitution.

I compared the gay lobby to alcoholics being given more to drink in hopes of satisfying them. That has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Again... you'r being a lying PUNK!

That certainly seems to be you saying that, if we remain true to the constitution, all other types of marriage, if they can be said to be based on a sexual proclivity, must be allowed.

You're right, that's not necessarily all other kinds of marriage.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

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

As soon as the GLBT club decides they want churches to perform their weddings, you will change your your mind and not acknowledge what you said here.

 

[aaronleland]

I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy...

Fag.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

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

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

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

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

That is what you fear

Until the day gay enablers like you willingly consent to being butt fucked by a gay man, assuming you're straight, homosexuals will not enjoy public acceptance of their lifestyle. There will always be a yuck factor separating us.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

As soon as the GLBT club decides they want churches to perform their weddings, you will change your your mind and not acknowledge what you said here.

Because they've already forced churches to marry interracial couples and interfaith couples, and atheist couples and previously divorced couples.......right?

 

[Faun]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're fucking deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused.

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act.

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

Like I said... you're fucking deranged.

I'm explaining why they're not allowed ... you're the one wondering why they're not...

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

I asked and no one ever gave a sufficient answer... just that it's not currently legal. I am not wondering why, I know why, you don't seem to know. The reason is very simple. Up until the recent SCOTUS ruling, you didn't have the right to not be discriminated against based on your sexuality. We have many laws which discriminate based on your sexual behavior. These will now begin to be challenged. It hasn't happened yet, it's coming soon. As soon as those laws start to fall, those people will push for their right to legitimize their relationships through marriage just as homosexuals did. They will use your very SAME arguments.

You're fucking deranged. You were wondering why they're not allowed. I even quoted you asking why they're not allowed and now you deny it.

As far as your idiotic claim that no one gave you a sufficient answer, again... you only think that because you're fucking deranged. Of course you were given a sufficient answer. It's not that you weren't given one -- it's that you're not capable of understanding the answer you were given. Hell, you still think marriage laws were based on sexuality. They weren't before the Supreme Court ruling and they're not now. If marriage laws were based on sexuality, gay men would not have been allowed to marry women back then. Lesbians would not have been allowed to marry men. The laws were based on gender, ya dumbfucking conservative, not sexuality.

 

[Faun]

You remain fucking clueless. It's about equality. You can't deny anyone their fundamental right to marry the person they love based on gender. Not based on sex.

They weren't being denied the right to marry! All across America, in all 50 states... homosexual males could marry homosexual females... lesbians could marry straight males... straight females could marry gay men... bisexual men could marry lesbians... transgender men could marry lesbians... straight women could marry transgender men... no one in America was being denied the right to MARRY!

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

This is why you remain so confused by the Supreme Court ruling. You simply don't understand any of this. You don't understand marriage is a right. You don't understand the primary purpose of marriage. You don't understand how gays were denied equal protection. You don't understand homosexuality is not the same as beastiality or pedophilia or incest.

This is all above your paygrade. That's why after hundreds of posts, you're still posting evidence that you simply don't understand.

 

[Faun]

It's about equality.

You're right... NOW it is! It's about sexuality being equal under the law. And the sexuality you find offensive or unacceptable has equal rights to the same laws. That's the part you are failing to realize because you're either a moron who doesn't comprehend "equal protection" or you're living in a hypocritical world of denial.

You're hopeless.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

That is what you fear

Until the day gay enablers like you willingly consent to being butt fucked by a gay man, assuming you're straight, homosexuals will not enjoy public acceptance of their lifestyle. There will always be a yuck factor separating us.

Of course there will be. So what?

 

[Boss]

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're fucking deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused.

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act.

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

Like I said... you're fucking deranged.

I'm explaining why they're not allowed ... you're the one wondering why they're not...

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

I asked and no one ever gave a sufficient answer... just that it's not currently legal. I am not wondering why, I know why, you don't seem to know. The reason is very simple. Up until the recent SCOTUS ruling, you didn't have the right to not be discriminated against based on your sexuality. We have many laws which discriminate based on your sexual behavior. These will now begin to be challenged. It hasn't happened yet, it's coming soon. As soon as those laws start to fall, those people will push for their right to legitimize their relationships through marriage just as homosexuals did. They will use your very SAME arguments.

Yes, we have laws regarding sexual behavior. Why do you assume that a)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be challenged and b)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be struck? That is the problem with your arguments.

You are, again, comparing homosexuality to various illegal acts. You also have not explained how, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity and because of that, marriage can now be defined by sexual proclivities, having marriage limited to heterosexuals does not do the same thing, since heterosexuality would also be a sexual proclivity.

You can argue that the state has no compelling interest in preventing bestiality or pedophiles or any other non-consensual relationships. I'm pretty damned certain that the courts will disagree. The fact that same sex marriage is now legal, or that homosexuality is itself is legal, in no way changes the arguments against non-consensual relationships. One need not be religious to see the potential harm in a sexual relationship with someone unable to consent to that relationship.

Oh, and pedophiles and zoophiles actually can get married. They just cannot marry a person or animal which is unable to legally enter into a marriage contract, which includes anything unable to give legal consent. In order to jump to bans on those sorts of marriages being ruled unconstitutional, not only would the age of consent to enter into the relationships need to change, so would the very nature of contract law.

Yes, homosexual acts are only 12 years removed from being illegal in some places. However, that was consensual homosexual acts. The ruling against sodomy laws had no effect on age of consent laws. Why would same sex marriage laws do so?

Yes, we have laws regarding sexual behavior. Why do you assume that a)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be challenged and b)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be struck? That is the problem with your arguments.

How many times do I need to walk you through this? How did homosexuality become legal? People challenged "compelling state interest" and won. I asked you earlier to explain a compelling state interest for making zoophilia illegal and you hem-hawed around without really presenting a valid reason. Some bullshit about "to maintain the integrity" ...sounded like something a "bigot" would say about same-sex marriage. You had NO compelling reason. Same is true of hebephilia and polygamy... and even incest, if the parties are not able to have children.

You are, again, comparing homosexuality to various illegal acts. You also have not explained how, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity and because of that, marriage can now be defined by sexual proclivities, having marriage limited to heterosexuals does not do the same thing, since heterosexuality would also be a sexual proclivity.

No, I compare homosexuality with other sexual behaviors because that is what it is. Marriage is not limited to heterosexuals. Do I need to hit you in the head with a board to get this point through? Nowhere in any state is there any sort of law restricting marriage to heterosexuals. As far as I am aware, there has never been such a law. Nor has there been a law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying... marriage being, union of man and woman.

You can argue that the state has no compelling interest in preventing bestiality or pedophiles or any other non-consensual relationships. I'm pretty damned certain that the courts will disagree. The fact that same sex marriage is now legal, or that homosexuality is itself is legal, in no way changes the arguments against non-consensual relationships. One need not be religious to see the potential harm in a sexual relationship with someone unable to consent to that relationship.

And yet, you can't present ANY valid compelling state interest without sounding exactly like someone who is opposed to gay marriage. You're merely basing everything on "consent" and "consent" can be changed... easier than marriage to change... in fact, it's already different in each state. In some states, a 14-year-old can consent, in other states, they can't.

I've already explained and illustrated how you cannot require "consent" from animals... they can't give legal consent. When you take your pet to the vet, he doesn't say... "Sorry, I can't treat your pet because they can't give their consent!" Animals are not required to consent just as they aren't required to obey laws. When a dog bites another person, the dog is not the one who gets sued. You can't defend yourself in court by saying the dog didn't give you consent to chain him up. The owner of the animal is the one who is responsible for consent for that animal. So you have an adult who consents and he can consent for his beloved pig... you have a de facto 'consensual' relationship.

Polygamy is probably the easiest example... no compelling state interest and no question of consent between adults. Why is this still illegal in 2015? Who are you to deny someone the right to marry the people they love? ...No reason-- and it's-a-coming!

Oh, and pedophiles and zoophiles actually can get married.
LOL... and so could homosexuals!

 

[Boss]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

 

[Montrovant]

You're fucking deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused.

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act.

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

Like I said... you're fucking deranged.

I'm explaining why they're not allowed ... you're the one wondering why they're not...

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

I asked and no one ever gave a sufficient answer... just that it's not currently legal. I am not wondering why, I know why, you don't seem to know. The reason is very simple. Up until the recent SCOTUS ruling, you didn't have the right to not be discriminated against based on your sexuality. We have many laws which discriminate based on your sexual behavior. These will now begin to be challenged. It hasn't happened yet, it's coming soon. As soon as those laws start to fall, those people will push for their right to legitimize their relationships through marriage just as homosexuals did. They will use your very SAME arguments.

Yes, we have laws regarding sexual behavior. Why do you assume that a)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be challenged and b)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be struck? That is the problem with your arguments.

You are, again, comparing homosexuality to various illegal acts. You also have not explained how, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity and because of that, marriage can now be defined by sexual proclivities, having marriage limited to heterosexuals does not do the same thing, since heterosexuality would also be a sexual proclivity.

You can argue that the state has no compelling interest in preventing bestiality or pedophiles or any other non-consensual relationships. I'm pretty damned certain that the courts will disagree. The fact that same sex marriage is now legal, or that homosexuality is itself is legal, in no way changes the arguments against non-consensual relationships. One need not be religious to see the potential harm in a sexual relationship with someone unable to consent to that relationship.

Oh, and pedophiles and zoophiles actually can get married. They just cannot marry a person or animal which is unable to legally enter into a marriage contract, which includes anything unable to give legal consent. In order to jump to bans on those sorts of marriages being ruled unconstitutional, not only would the age of consent to enter into the relationships need to change, so would the very nature of contract law.

Yes, homosexual acts are only 12 years removed from being illegal in some places. However, that was consensual homosexual acts. The ruling against sodomy laws had no effect on age of consent laws. Why would same sex marriage laws do so?

Yes, we have laws regarding sexual behavior. Why do you assume that a)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be challenged and b)because of same sex marriage, those laws will be struck? That is the problem with your arguments.

How many times do I need to walk you through this? How did homosexuality become legal? People challenged "compelling state interest" and won. I asked you earlier to explain a compelling state interest for making zoophilia illegal and you hem-hawed around without really presenting a valid reason. Some bullshit about "to maintain the integrity" ...sounded like something a "bigot" would say about same-sex marriage. You had NO compelling reason. Same is true of hebephilia and polygamy... and even incest, if the parties are not able to have children.

You are, again, comparing homosexuality to various illegal acts. You also have not explained how, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity and because of that, marriage can now be defined by sexual proclivities, having marriage limited to heterosexuals does not do the same thing, since heterosexuality would also be a sexual proclivity.

No, I compare homosexuality with other sexual behaviors because that is what it is. Marriage is not limited to heterosexuals. Do I need to hit you in the head with a board to get this point through? Nowhere in any state is there any sort of law restricting marriage to heterosexuals. As far as I am aware, there has never been such a law. Nor has there been a law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying... marriage being, union of man and woman.

You can argue that the state has no compelling interest in preventing bestiality or pedophiles or any other non-consensual relationships. I'm pretty damned certain that the courts will disagree. The fact that same sex marriage is now legal, or that homosexuality is itself is legal, in no way changes the arguments against non-consensual relationships. One need not be religious to see the potential harm in a sexual relationship with someone unable to consent to that relationship.

And yet, you can't present ANY valid compelling state interest without sounding exactly like someone who is opposed to gay marriage. You're merely basing everything on "consent" and "consent" can be changed... easier than marriage to change... in fact, it's already different in each state. In some states, a 14-year-old can consent, in other states, they can't.

I've already explained and illustrated how you cannot require "consent" from animals... they can't give legal consent. When you take your pet to the vet, he doesn't say... "Sorry, I can't treat your pet because they can't give their consent!" Animals are not required to consent just as they aren't required to obey laws. When a dog bites another person, the dog is not the one who gets sued. You can't defend yourself in court by saying the dog didn't give you consent to chain him up. The owner of the animal is the one who is responsible for consent for that animal. So you have an adult who consents and he can consent for his beloved pig... you have a de facto 'consensual' relationship.

Polygamy is probably the easiest example... no compelling state interest and no question of consent between adults. Why is this still illegal in 2015? Who are you to deny someone the right to marry the people they love? ...No reason-- and it's-a-coming!

Oh, and pedophiles and zoophiles actually can get married.
LOL... and so could homosexuals!

That people challenge compelling state interest in one thing does not mean it will change for all other things, which is the whole basis for your argument. Unless you can give a good reason why various laws will no longer be found to have a compelling state interest and therefore will change, all you are doing is blowing hot air.

Same sex marriage isn't limited to homosexuals. So hey, I guess your entire argument about it being based on a sexual proclivity is gone.

I don't sound exactly like someone opposing gay marriage. I never, not once, heard a single person say or read the words of a single person saying that homosexuality or same sex marriage were bad because someone involved was unable to consent. Do I have to go look for psychological papers and studies to show harm done from rape by pedophiles? Do I need to show the potential harm from disease for a necrophiliac, or point out that the body they might have sex with does not belong to them? If nothing else, bestiality could be considered animal abuse because, once again, the lack of consent. In legal terms any sex with an animal could be considered rape (although obviously not the same as rape of a human) and therefore abusive.

You're right that a dog does not get sued. On the other hand, they do get killed. You talk about this as though there are no consequences for a dog that does something illegal like biting a person. Just because animals have different laws that concern them doesn't mean they aren't bound by any laws. And again, you seem to have a problem with consent. You realize an animal can't consent but don't seem to get the idea of consent being required for sexual relations. And yes, there is certainly a moral component to these laws, as with nearly any law. And yes, it's possible that some day society will have changed enough to allow such things. Your wild ranting about how same sex marriage means these changes are nigh is ridiculous.

Animals can't consent, nor can they enter into a contract. They are animals. Are they going to sign their names? Give some sort of verbal agreement to a contract? How will they indicate they understand the terms of a contract?

Why does it matter if age of consent laws are more easily changed than marriage laws? I don't actually know what makes that true, but whatever, it doesn't matter. It's been pointed out that age of consent laws have been going up, rather than down, yet you still trot that out as though suddenly the country is going to decide that 6 year olds can consent to sex. The ease with which consent laws can change is not related to same sex marriage at all. Why do you keep repeating that meaningless tripe that consent laws are easier to change?

I have no moral problems with polygamy. The only issues I see are in the details; current marriage law would not work for a polygamous relationship. If people work out the details and all are willing adults, feel free to have a polygamous marriage as far as I'm concerned.

Why don't you compare homosexuality to some more illegal, non-consensual sex acts, tell us that consent laws can change as though that means anything, give a few more lines about how homosexuals know they are wrong, then let us know how tolerant you are again?

 

[Montrovant]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage. So, not being about sexual proclivities, your argument is bunk.

Can you point to the part of Obergefell in which the USSC ruled that marriage is based on a sexual proclivity?

 

[Boss]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

LMAOoo.. typical clueless lib response. You don't have an answer so you pretend it has been explained when it hasn't. Your only reasoning for why the other things mentioned can't be made legal or legitimized through marriage is because you don't think they can or you don't think people would approve of such things. Your strongest evidence to support your argument is that these things haven't been legalized yet. That, and the consent laws which change all the time.

No... I am NOT deranged... you're going to probably live long enough to witness "deranged" and see it codified into law and legitimized through marriage. Once the moral constraints are removed, it all happens very quickly.

 

[Boss]

Do I have to go look for psychological papers and studies to show harm done from rape by pedophiles? Do I need to show the potential harm from disease for a necrophiliac, or point out that the body they might have sex with does not belong to them? If nothing else, bestiality could be considered animal abuse because, once again, the lack of consent. In legal terms any sex with an animal could be considered rape (although obviously not the same as rape of a human) and therefore abusive.

You could do those things if you wanted to sound exactly like opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality. There are STDs exclusively prevalent in homosexuals as the result of anal sex. Fecal bacteria causes death and you are at risk every time you engage in anal sex. Sodomy laws were exclusively based on absence of consent... you can't consent to be sodomized any more than you can consent to be raped.... or, so was the legal argument. Sodomy, for all intents and purposes, was considered no different than rape. Incest is currently in that category. Does it belong there or are these delineations we've constructed out of moral righteousness? When it comes to animal sex, what about the female who is mounted by her German Shepherd? The dog obviously doesn't object.. it's instinctual for them.

Yes indeed... LOTS of things "could be considered" back when we had no Constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior... that has now changed. That's my point.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

LMAOoo.. typical clueless lib response. You don't have an answer so you pretend it has been explained when it hasn't. Your only reasoning for why the other things mentioned can't be made legal or legitimized through marriage is because you don't think they can or you don't think people would approve of such things. Your strongest evidence to support your argument is that these things haven't been legalized yet. That, and the consent laws which change all the time.

No... I am NOT deranged... you're going to probably live long enough to witness "deranged" and see it codified into law and legitimized through marriage. Once the moral constraints are removed, it all happens very quickly.

That's not even what I said.

How on Earth are you going to convince anyone you're not deranged when you can't even understand what people are saying?

I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.

And yes, that has been explained to you even though you now deny it.

Again, you don't possess even the minimal required acumen to understand this argument. That's why you persist with this idiocy of yours. Likr your moronic belief thay homosexuality is similar to beastiality, pedophilia and incest.