It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Mertex]

And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?

Geez, a simple biology class will help you understand why.....it is call inbreeding. Of course, if a person doesn't care if they risk bringing disabled/deformed children into the world, they don't have to marry to do so, they can go ahead and have sex with their brother/sister to their heart's content. It would be inhumane for society to allow it, but if you feel strongly that it should be allowed, write your Congressman.

Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same sex siblings cannot reproduce.

The state's compelling reason in denying siblings marrying is for the reason I stated, "incest" causing disabled/deformed children. When the law was created, I suppose nobody thought that some day same-sex sibling marriage (because they cannot reproduce) would be a desire for some. If there is enough interest in the country, like there was for same-sex marriage for gays, then I'm sure that it will be brought up and it is up to the country to decide whether it is necessary, or if maybe the rights that are being sought by this type of marriage need to be changed.

It is unlawful today but who's to say that it couldn't be changed?

Same sex siblings are not even inclined to sexual activity with each other.

Well, you don't know that. What if they are gay?

Geez, you should take a biology class

I overlooked the "same sex" in your statement. But, like I said, it could be changed, so if you really have a desire to see it changed....write your Congressman.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

I take great pleasure in pointing out that the root of your ongoing attempt to derail every thread to your pet project of linking incest to homosexuality when it comes to marriage is your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Here is your comment again- where you attack the poster based only upon the gender of people she has sex with

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

Why do you believe that is what marriage should be?

Why do you believe that a couple who has had 3 children together- and then get married- suddenly is creating a family that didn't exist before?

And why do you believe that a couple who divorce- and then remarry- is creating a whole new family when they remarry?

 

[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.

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.

You remain fucking deranged.

You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved. But you've been fighting the argument why pedophilia and beastiality will be legalized, despite all rationale to the contrary.

It's your fight. You own it.

I'm the one pointing out you are fucking deranged for believing pedophilia and beastiality will legalized. I believe I've more than proven my case, even if you are too fucking deranged to see it.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Laughable really.

The reason that the state would have a compelling interest to deny same sex siblings the right to marry is because if one was of the opposite sex they might procreate?

You do understand how absurd that is, right?

You sound down right bigoted.

 

[Mertex]

If "they" refers to sexual deviants in the United States, the statement is false.

Where is your proof that homosexuals are sexual deviants? FYI, many heterosexual people participate in the same type of sexual activity, including married couples....and they are not denied marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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.

Oh really- you want to go there? I spent quite some time pointing out what a sickening little liar you have been in this thread. I am glad to do so again- since suddenly you want to get on your high homophobic horse about honesty.:

So once again- where you just bald faced lied- and have continued to pretend that you didn't.


Here is your lie- and I quote you saying:
Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children "

Quotes of Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:
Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

 

[Pop23]

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, you're fucking deranged because you discuss issues, but gays aren't while having sex with their own sex?

You simply have to be amazed at how laughable their side can be.

Amazing really.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

. 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,

No one has supported any argument which supports pedophilia or beastility.

Matter of fact- the only one who has brought them up is you. You have attempted- and failed to make an argument that allowing homosexuality is the same as allowing pedophilia or beastility.

What we have pointed out is that just displays your contempt for 'Consent' when it comes to sex or marriage.

 

[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?

I take great pleasure in pointing out that the root of your ongoing attempt to derail every thread to your pet project of linking incest to homosexuality when it comes to marriage is your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Here is your comment again- where you attack the poster based only upon the gender of people she has sex with

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

Incest involves an action. Calling two hetro sisters incestuous shows your bigoted nature.

Shame on you.

 

[Faun]

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.

Laughable really.

The reason that the state would have a compelling interest to deny same sex siblings the right to marry is because if one was of the opposite sex they might procreate?

You do understand how absurd that is, right?

You sound down right bigoted.

No, what's absurd is that you don't, or can't, understand what I said.

What I said was not what you attributed to me but that the compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage is due to health concerns. The reason for denying same-sex incestuous marriage is due to applyng the equally for all incestuous marriage. Just like the principle behind non-incestuous marriage, the law cannot deny different gender siblings from marrying but allow same-sex siblings to marry.

Do you understand now? It's only about the 7th or 8th time I've had to explain it to you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Speaking of 'lying' as usual- I present again- Boss being nailed for his blatant lie- be prepared to watch him dance and try to pretend it is not a lie



Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:
Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

I take great pleasure in pointing out that the root of your ongoing attempt to derail every thread to your pet project of linking incest to homosexuality when it comes to marriage is your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Here is your comment again- where you attack the poster based only upon the gender of people she has sex with

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

Incest involves an action. Calling two hetro sisters incestuous shows your bigoted nature.

Shame on you.

Try to dance away from your bigotry- fine with me- glad to keep pointing it out.

I take great pleasure in pointing out that the root of your ongoing attempt to derail every thread to your pet project of linking incest to homosexuality when it comes to marriage is your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Here is your comment again- where you attack the poster based only upon the gender of people she has sex with

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

 

[Syriusly]

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, you're fucking deranged because you discuss issues, but gays aren't while having sex with their own sex?
.

Pop showing once again that all of his straw men are just because of his bigotry towards homosexuals.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Laughable really.

The reason that the state would have a compelling interest to deny same sex siblings the right to marry is because if one was of the opposite sex they might procreate?

You do understand how absurd that is, right?

You sound down right bigoted.

No, what's absurd is that you don't, or can't, understand what I said.

What I said was not what you attributed to me but that the compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage is due to health concerns. The reason for denying same-sex incestuous marriage is due to applyng the equally for all incestuous marriage. Just like the principle behind non-incestuous marriage, the law cannot deny different gender siblings from marrying but allow same-sex siblings to marry.

Do you understand now? It's only about the 7th or 8th time I've had to explain it to you.

You Can explain your bigoted opinion until the cows come home, and all I can do is point out your bigotry.

One marriage excluded the need for the partners to be of opposite sexes, the rest of the law becomes absurd when it is applied simply as a discrimatory tool against same sex hetro couples.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Not anymore. The law has been changed. The "not too closely related" law hasn't changed. When enough people are able to convince the country that it needs to, then maybe it will, but I seriously doubt it. Most people still abhor incest, whether it is reproducing or not.

 

[Pop23]

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, you're fucking deranged because you discuss issues, but gays aren't while having sex with their own sex?
.

Pop showing once again that all of his straw men are just because of his bigotry towards homosexuals.

You advocated the change in the law, then want to exclude millions who should have a right to benefit from that law?

My how the righteous so quickly became the bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Laughable really.

The reason that the state would have a compelling interest to deny same sex siblings the right to marry is because if one was of the opposite sex they might procreate?

You do understand how absurd that is, right?

You sound down right bigoted.

No, what's absurd is that you don't, or can't, understand what I said.

What I said was not what you attributed to me but that the compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage is due to health concerns. The reason for denying same-sex incestuous marriage is due to applyng the equally for all incestuous marriage. Just like the principle behind non-incestuous marriage, the law cannot deny different gender siblings from marrying but allow same-sex siblings to marry.

Do you understand now? It's only about the 7th or 8th time I've had to explain it to you.

You Can explain your bigoted opinion until the cows come home, and all I can do is point out your bigotry.

One marriage excluded the need for the partners to be of opposite sexes, the rest of the law becomes absurd when it is applied simply as a discrimatory tool against same sex hetro couples.

The only one displaying any bigotry here is you- and of course Boss.

You are the one who judges people based entirely because they have sex with the same gender.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Not anymore. The law has been changed. The "not too closely related" law hasn't changed. When enough people are able to convince the country that it needs to, then maybe it will, but I seriously doubt it. Most people still abhor incest, whether it is reproducing or not.

Can you explain how two hetrosexual sisters, wishing to marry for the benefits and protections afforded others and to help in the raising of their children is incest?

Thank you in advance

 

[Syriusly]

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, you're fucking deranged because you discuss issues, but gays aren't while having sex with their own sex?
.

Pop showing once again that all of his straw men are just because of his bigotry towards homosexuals.

You advocated the change in the law, then want to exclude millions who should have a right to benefit from that law?

My how the righteous so quickly became the bigot.

No- I just point out what liar you are- and a bigot.

I support the right of same gender couples to marry- you want to discriminate against them.

Because you are bigoted against homosexuals.

I have said quite clearly that if you want to fight for your right to marry your sister- you have the same right to pursue that as gay couples did- and that if the State cannot provide a compelling reason to prevent you from marrying, then the law should be overturned.

You apparently can't come up with any reason for siblings not to marry. I have pointed out that the courts have come up with other reasons.

The only bigots here are you and Boss.

Again.