It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.

We've been over this already. Clearly, you don't learn.

You have it backwards... we're not denying one group of people a right .... we're treating similar groups equal under the law. No immediate family members may marry even though it may be safe for some of them.

So homosexuals were treated equally under the law, so this actually isn't a civil rights issue.

Thanks.

So Pops is just making crap up again, so once again this has nothing to do with incest- just Pop's bigotry towards homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.

First, as I understand it, there are already some state laws regarding marriage between relatives in which at least one must be infertile for the marriage to occur.

Second, you avoid the question of whether there is a state interest in preventing marriages (and, I can only guess, sexual relations in general) between closely related family members. That would allow denial of the right to marry.

The rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons. The voting and gun ownership rights of convicted felons comes to mind.

. If that is good public policy, then the argument that only couples with the potential to procreate can also be good public policy.

That argument was made- and failed repeatedly in court. Congratulations on making the same losing argument that ultimately failed to impress the Supreme Court.

Since, as was pointed out, states don't care whether or not couples have a potential to procreate.

 

[Syriusly]

The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.

Hint: children, animals and dead people cannot give legal consent.

You're right that the concept of consent as it relates to age HAS changed...it keeps going up thankfully.

It seems that suddenly, you perverts want to get all tight-assed and proselytize about your morals when it comes to "consent" and age of consent, or in applying consent where the parameter can't possibly be met. Do you really think future generations are going to give a shit about your moral hang ups?

Your inability to understand the concept of consent is not our problem- it is your problem.

I can understand why two adults consenting to have sex together is different from a man sticking his penis in the vagina of a 4 year old girl. I can understand why one is okay- and one is not.

So far from this thread- you do not appear to be able to do so.

 

[Syriusly]

You are welcome to your opinion. However the people have decided that the government should be involved in marriage.

Really? When did the people decide this?

The people have decided this every time legislation was passed regarding marriage.

Hell the 'people' decided government should be involved in marriage even when the 'people' decided to pass discriminatory laws to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

You don't give a damn what the 'people' want- the 'people' are not asking for the government to get out of marriage- you are the one who has decided that this is what is 'best' for the people. King Boss deciding for his subjects.

 

[Montrovant]

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.

First, as I understand it, there are already some state laws regarding marriage between relatives in which at least one must be infertile for the marriage to occur.

Second, you avoid the question of whether there is a state interest in preventing marriages (and, I can only guess, sexual relations in general) between closely related family members. That would allow denial of the right to marry.

The rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons. The voting and gun ownership rights of convicted felons comes to mind.

We are speaking as to if a law banning a relationship is good public policy or not, not if laws exist.

If the existence ad law was the point, same sex marriage would not be legal.

Is there a state interest in denying two hetro sisters the right to marry so they can assist in raising children? I can't see what that would be.

You?

I brought up certain laws regarding familial relations getting married to point out that the law already allows exceptions based on ability to procreate.

The state interest in denying the sisters would be based on the potential for abuse, exploitation and damage to the social safety net brought up in the Wisconsin ruling Syriusly posted a excerpt from. I'm not sure if I agree with it; I'm somewhat on the fence regarding sibling relationships.

 

[Syriusly]

The definition of consent, as far as the law is concerned, is anything but ethereal. It's very clear. Please learn it before you run afoul of the law.

Hint: children, animals and dead people cannot give legal consent.

You're right that the concept of consent as it relates to age HAS changed...it keeps going up thankfully.

Twenty years ago, you couldn't legally consent to homosexual acts.

Once again you just display your lack of ability to understand consent.

Sodomy laws had nothing to do with consent. Rape does.

 

[Montrovant]

I believe I've brought it up in this thread, but familial relationships may have a stronger possibility of positions of power, of excessive influence by one party over another. I think it applies more to parents or grandparents and children, but the argument might be made that there is too great a danger of one family member using their influence over another to force them into a sexual/romantic relationship.

It is a valid question as to what reason, other than possible genetic issues with children, adult siblings should be prevented from marrying. It could end up in court at some point. I don't think parent/child relationships are likely to get legal legitimacy for the reason I stated, but it's possible for siblings.

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.

First, as I understand it, there are already some state laws regarding marriage between relatives in which at least one must be infertile for the marriage to occur.

Second, you avoid the question of whether there is a state interest in preventing marriages (and, I can only guess, sexual relations in general) between closely related family members. That would allow denial of the right to marry.

The rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons. The voting and gun ownership rights of convicted felons comes to mind.

I failed to answer your last point. Sorry, got busy.

You state that the rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons and that restricted gun ownership by felons come to mind.

True, we restrict those rights based on a conviction. We do not however restrict the felons neighbors this right.

My argument is that you want to restrict the rights of same sex hetro siblings (the neighbor) based on the potential act or actions of an opposite sex sibling couple (the felon). If that is good public policy, then the argument that only couples with the potential to procreate can also be good public policy.

Your argument is that the only reason to prevent sibling relationships is based on possible issues from having children. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is not the sole reason.

 

[Syriusly]

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.

First, as I understand it, there are already some state laws regarding marriage between relatives in which at least one must be infertile for the marriage to occur.

Second, you avoid the question of whether there is a state interest in preventing marriages (and, I can only guess, sexual relations in general) between closely related family members. That would allow denial of the right to marry.

The rights of different groups have always been limited for various reasons. The voting and gun ownership rights of convicted felons comes to mind.

We are speaking as to if a law banning a relationship is good public policy or not, not if laws exist.

If the existence ad law was the point, same sex marriage would not be legal.

Is there a state interest in denying two hetro sisters the right to marry so they can assist in raising children? I can't see what that would be.

You?

I brought up certain laws regarding familial relations getting married to point out that the law already allows exceptions based on ability to procreate.

The state interest in denying the sisters would be based on the potential for abuse, exploitation and damage to the social safety net brought up in the Wisconsin ruling Syriusly posted a excerpt from. I'm not sure if I agree with it; I'm somewhat on the fence regarding sibling relationships.

You don't have to agree with it. Pop continually brings up his strawman and then insists that the only reason that States ban incestuous marriage is procreation.

Whether or not we agree with the court's rational- the court does present another 'reason'- and was the one who pointed out that that was a valid State reason. None of us know how a court would rule on the issue, or even exactly how a State would choose to defend its marriage laws banning incestuous marriage- but the State does have arguments other than procreation.

But if Pop wants to go to court arguing that he should be able to marry his brother- and the State cannot provide a convincing argument as to why Pop should not be able to marry his brother- then there is no reason for the law to be on the books.

 

[Montrovant]

Twenty years ago, you couldn't legally consent to homosexual acts. So we see, legal consent can obviously be changed and it has been.

Once again you show that you do not understand the concept of consent in relation to marriage and sexual relationships. You are just tossing the word around regardless of context trying to make a point.

 

[Syriusly]

Sadly, you remain too fucking deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

Key words for you; reasonable person standard and societal harm.

You all want to be total hypocrites... This behavior over here is okay because we say so and it doesn't really matter what you think... That behavior over there is wrong because we think it's wrong.

The only one who has been a total hypocrite in this thread is you.

You who proclaims to be tolerant of homosexuals while at the same time piling total bullshit into your OP- and coming up with more homophobic bullshit ever since.

To you homosexual 'behavior'- whatever that is- is wrong- because you have decided it is wrong. And you don't care that you can't come up with any reason other than your own 'morality'- which of course just means your own bigotry.

 

[Pop23]

Great post. I appreciate it.

It seems very odd, that a group as unconventional as homosexuals would bring such fervent arguments about others that may want unconventional marriage.

A hetro same sex sibling couple may simply want the rights afforded them that other married couples have. Is that any more odd than a same sex sexually active couple? I'm not seeing it. Because one couple would want to have sex and the other would not, one couple is superior to the other? I'm not seeing anywhere in the law that even implies that sex is required. You?

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.

We've been over this already. Clearly, you don't learn.

You have it backwards... we're not denying one group of people a right .... we're treating similar groups equal under the law. No immediate family members may marry even though it may be safe for some of them.

So homosexuals were treated equally under the law, so this actually isn't a civil rights issue.

Thanks.

They were not treated equally under the law. There was no compelling argument to deny them their right to marry the person they loved. There is a compelling reason to deny immediate family members the right to marry. And though it might be safe for some, such as same-sex siblings, allowing them to marry but not others would violate the equal protection clause.

You defend your position by making the claim that since couple "A" has the potential to procreate, it is appropriate to deny a civil right to couple "B" who does not have that ability. Correct?

So, then it should be appropriate to deny a civil right based on the inability for a group not to procreate as well.

Thanks again

 

[Pop23]

I really didn't think it was possible for Pop's strawmen to get more incoherent. I was wrong.

You sleep with members of your own sex, no wonder why you don't understand common sense?

And here Pop just shows what is at the root of all of this- his bigotry towards homosexuals.

You didn't realize that homosexuals sleep with members of their own sex before this?

Where you been, hanging out with Mertex who thinks hetro same sex siblings can procreate?

 

[Pop23]

You simply deflect. Is a non sexual hetro same sex sibling marriage any more damaging to society than any same sex marriage?

No- I am tired of you trotting out your straw man, attempting to derail threads with your obsession over incest.

One has nothing to do with another- I will just continue to point out that it is your straw man and quote the court on the subject

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118

So I again will ask the question, see if you can answer. What societal damaged is caused by two hetro sisters marrying so they can better raise their children.

I know it's hard to think for yourself, it's not that hard to do.

Do you believe that a mother should be able to marry her son?

No, but that's simply an opinion

In your opinion- why not?

Because marriage should be only between a man and a women, not too closely related and to create a new family where none previously existed.

But you already knew that, right?

 

[Faun]

They were not treated equally under the law.

If "they" refers to sexual deviants in the United States, the statement is false. As there was no inequality to be found anywhere with regard to such, that was not predicated directly upon their degenerate behavior.

There was no compelling argument to deny them their right to marry the person they loved.

Again, this is a false statement. Sexual deviants were not being denied the right to marry, as long as they applied for such with a person of the distinct gender. As Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing Genders, with each specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other. Humanity's best interests is served through the recognition and adherence to nature's law, as such serves as the guideline in sustain human viability. Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is a compelling reason to deny immediate family members the right to marry.

Yes... there is. And that interests is the same as that stated above: Sustaining the viability of the species through sound standards which recognize and respect the laws of nature.

You referred to yourself as a sexual deviant, so who are you to judge others?

The remainder of your idiocy has been dispelled in other posts in this thread.

 

[Boss]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

As always, your argument has no merit. How can it? You're fucking deranged, remember? You are legally allowed to marry Kate Upton. That's where your argument crumbles to dust. It's not the law that's preventing you from marrying Kate Upton .... it's Kate Upton preventing you from marrying Kate Upton. And why would she want to marry someone who fights for pedophilia and beastiality to be legal?

Clearly you've decided to bow up and just lie your sorry liberal ass off. I've never fought for pedophilia or beastiality to be legal. I'm opposed to it just as I am opposed to homosexual marriage being legal. I don't think any of these things are a right and especially not a right that warrants changing traditions and words to accommodate. That's YOUR viewpoint, I am arguing AGAINST those things, you are making arguments which support those things. When it's pointed out that you support an argument that supports those things, you want to get on your moral high horse and proclaim that certain things "we just know is wrong" like some kind of moral crusader. Then you want to dishonestly turn my argument around and pretend I am condoning such things.

You don't know how to be honest. You don't know how to be objective. You're just a sickening little puke who doesn't know how to do much of anything except lie and distort what others say.

 

[Faun]

No, I don't see sex being a requirement for any marriage.

As Seawytch pointed out, sibling marriage could not be limited to same sex couples. However, if it were restricted to infertile couples, I could see at least the possibility of it becoming legalized, were some couples to take it to court.

There is also the Wisconsin case Syriusly quoted from bringing up possible legal reasons for restricting incestuous marriages.

So while the possibility may be real, I don't know that it is at all likely. Nor do I think it is going to come to pass based on same sex marriage bans being lifted.

Ok, again a great post, but now we must limit the rights of one group because another group has an ability the other group does not have?

You understand that argument recently failed judicial muster.

We've been over this already. Clearly, you don't learn.

You have it backwards... we're not denying one group of people a right .... we're treating similar groups equal under the law. No immediate family members may marry even though it may be safe for some of them.

So homosexuals were treated equally under the law, so this actually isn't a civil rights issue.

Thanks.

They were not treated equally under the law. There was no compelling argument to deny them their right to marry the person they loved. There is a compelling reason to deny immediate family members the right to marry. And though it might be safe for some, such as same-sex siblings, allowing them to marry but not others would violate the equal protection clause.

You defend your position by making the claim that since couple "A" has the potential to procreate, it is appropriate to deny a civil right to couple "B" who does not have that ability. Correct?

So, then it should be appropriate to deny a civil right based on the inability for a group not to procreate as well.

Thanks again

No, the equivalent would be to say no one could get married rather than say heterosexuals can but homosexuals cannot. Sans a compelling interest, the state cannot discriminate. They cannot say some siblings can marry but others cannot.

 

[Faun]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

As always, your argument has no merit. How can it? You're fucking deranged, remember? You are legally allowed to marry Kate Upton. That's where your argument crumbles to dust. It's not the law that's preventing you from marrying Kate Upton .... it's Kate Upton preventing you from marrying Kate Upton. And why would she want to marry someone who fights for pedophilia and beastiality to be legal?

Clearly you've decided to bow up and just lie your sorry liberal ass off. I've never fought for pedophilia or beastiality to be legal. I'm opposed to it just as I am opposed to homosexual marriage being legal. I don't think any of these things are a right and especially not a right that warrants changing traditions and words to accommodate. That's YOUR viewpoint, I am arguing AGAINST those things, you are making arguments which support those things. When it's pointed out that you support an argument that supports those things, you want to get on your moral high horse and proclaim that certain things "we just know is wrong" like some kind of moral crusader. Then you want to dishonestly turn my argument around and pretend I am condoning such things.

You don't know how to be honest. You don't know how to be objective. You're just a sickening little puke who doesn't know how to do much of anything except lie and distort what others say.

You're fucking deranged.

This entire thread is you fighting the cause for legalizing pedophilia and beastiality. While you say you're against them being legal, you've done nothing but argue how there's no reason they shouldn't be.

 

[Boss]

Your inability to understand the concept of consent is not our problem- it is your problem.

No, it's YOUR inability to understand the concept of marriage which has brought us here.

 

[Faun]

Your inability to understand the concept of consent is not our problem- it is your problem.

No, it's YOUR inability to understand the concept of marriage which has brought us here.

Spits the deranged poster who doesn't know the primary reason people in the U.S. marry is to make a life-long commitment to the person they love; nor thinks anyone has the right to do so.

 

[Boss]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

As always, your argument has no merit. How can it? You're fucking deranged, remember? You are legally allowed to marry Kate Upton. That's where your argument crumbles to dust. It's not the law that's preventing you from marrying Kate Upton .... it's Kate Upton preventing you from marrying Kate Upton. And why would she want to marry someone who fights for pedophilia and beastiality to be legal?

Clearly you've decided to bow up and just lie your sorry liberal ass off. I've never fought for pedophilia or beastiality to be legal. I'm opposed to it just as I am opposed to homosexual marriage being legal. I don't think any of these things are a right and especially not a right that warrants changing traditions and words to accommodate. That's YOUR viewpoint, I am arguing AGAINST those things, you are making arguments which support those things. When it's pointed out that you support an argument that supports those things, you want to get on your moral high horse and proclaim that certain things "we just know is wrong" like some kind of moral crusader. Then you want to dishonestly turn my argument around and pretend I am condoning such things.

You don't know how to be honest. You don't know how to be objective. You're just a sickening little puke who doesn't know how to do much of anything except lie and distort what others say.

Your fucking deranged.

Thus entire thread is you fighting the cause for legalizing pedophilia and beastiality. While you say you're against them being legal, you've done nothing but argue how there's no reason they shouldn't be.

No it is not... you're lying as usual. Pointing out how your argument paves the way for something doesn't mean I support what your argument paves the way for. That's just plain stupid sounding.

I like traditional values where marriage is between a man and woman and isn't defined by your sexuality. I don't want to start establishing constitutional rights based on sexual behavior, that's YOUR position, that's what YOU want. Only, you want to be able to do it where YOU get to pick and choose who to discriminate against based on YOUR morality. I'm presenting examples to show what an absolute hypocrite you are, I don't condone any of this shit... except for my "right" to marry Kate Upton! I'm all for that being made to happen.