It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[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, 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.

Hey, look at that! We agree on something.

We agree Boss is fucking deranged for discussing issues; specifically...

He's fucking deranged because he makes comments and then later adamantly denies making them. He's fucking deranged because he can't tell the difference between two consenting adults of the same gender engaging in sex from a person raping a child or having sex with an animal. He fucking deranged because he believes legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of pedophilia and beastiality. He's fucking deranged because he thinks there's a law preventing him from marrying Kate Upton. He's fucking deranged because he thinks marriage is not a right.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I'll bet you still wish blacks were forced to the back of the bus, don't you. Or maybe just the straight blacks?

 

[Syriusly]

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

The courts have already explained some reasons why they might not be allowed to marry

For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

But if you want to go to court to argue you should be able to marry your sibling- those are some of the arguments you will need to overcome.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I'll bet you still wish blacks were forced to the back of the bus, don't you. Or maybe just the straight blacks?

I'll bet you still wish mixed race couples were not allowed to marry.

After all- the same arguments you are making are the same arguments the State of Virginia was making on why Blacks and Whites should not be allowed to marry.

You= the racist State of Virginia

 

[Faun]

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.

Says you. The law says otherwise.

Now what?

 

[Mertex]

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?

Your statement is the one that is absurd....if one of the siblings is of the opposite sex, they are not same sex siblings.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Oh, indeed not, I'm showing that same sex marriage advocates are perhaps the biggest bigots there are. Let me post a perfect example.

Both of the following female couples wish to marry so that they can share the benefits and protections of the institution. All four of the couples are single mothers and by marrying, they feel they can better raise their children.

Couple A: Mary and June

Couple B: Mary and June.

Which of the above couple is denied the right to Marry?

 

[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.

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

So you think that sisters cannot be gay?

Incest:
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other

 

[Pop23]

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?

Your statement is the one that is absurd....if one of the siblings is of the opposite sex, they are not same sex siblings.

You missed the "if" part.

The state would be arguing that THIS same sex sibling cannot marry because "if" one of the same sex siblings were the opposite sex they might procreate.

That is simply a silly argument. Yet it is yours

 

[Mertex]

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.

Oh, indeed not, I'm showing that same sex marriage advocates are perhaps the biggest bigots there are. Let me post a perfect example.

Both of the following female couples wish to marry so that they can share the benefits and protections of the institution. All four of the couples are single mothers and by marrying, they feel they can better raise their children.

Couple A: Mary and June

Couple B: Mary and June.

Which of the above couple is denied the right to Marry?

Based on the information you provide, none of them should be denied under current law. However, if June in couple A happens to be a cow, then they should be denied.
If Mary in couple B happens to be a child, then they should be denied also. What's your point?

 

[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

So you think that sisters cannot be gay?

Incest:
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other

Now post the part of the law in which sex is a requirement, and my argument is that the sisters are heterosexuals

I know this is hard for you to beleive (which is strange), there actually are people that don't want to have sex with members of their own gender.

True story.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Oh, indeed not, I'm showing that same sex marriage advocates are perhaps the biggest bigots there are. Let me post a perfect example.

Both of the following female couples wish to marry so that they can share the benefits and protections of the institution. All four of the couples are single mothers and by marrying, they feel they can better raise their children.

Couple A: Mary and June

Couple B: Mary and June.

Which of the above couple is denied the right to Marry?

Based on the information you provide, none of them should be denied under current law. However, if June in couple A happens to be a cow, then they should be denied.
If Mary in couple B happens to be a child, then they should be denied also. What's your point?

Cows and children are not eligible marry,

Ok, since you need to deflect I will add:

All are over the age of consent, and all are human beings.

 

[Mertex]

You missed the "if" part.

No, I didn't. You must not be proficient in English. You said "same sex siblings....and then "if one was of the opposite sex".....ergo, they cannot be same sex siblings if one is of the opposite sex.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Oh, indeed not, I'm showing that same sex marriage advocates are perhaps the biggest bigots there are. Let me post a perfect example.

Both of the following female couples wish to marry so that they can share the benefits and protections of the institution. All four of the couples are single mothers and by marrying, they feel they can better raise their children.

Couple A: Mary and June

Couple B: Mary and June.

Which of the above couple is denied the right to Marry?

Based on the information you provide, none of them should be denied under current law. However, if June in couple A happens to be a cow, then they should be denied.
If Mary in couple B happens to be a child, then they should be denied also. What's your point?

Cows and children are not eligible marry,

Exactly, that is why it would be denied.

Ok, since you need to deflect I will add:

All are over the age of consent, and all are human beings.

Again, based on just that information, they are all allowed. But, if one of the couples are siblings, they would be denied because there is a law that prohibits it. What is your problem understanding that? If you want to change that law, then you need to write your Congressman, or convince enough people that it is okay. You can't do something that is against the law....don't you understand that?

 

[Seawytch]

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

So you think that sisters cannot be gay?

Incest:
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other

Now post the part of the law in which sex is a requirement, and my argument is that the sisters are heterosexuals

I know this is hard for you to beleive (which is strange), there actually are people that don't want to have sex with members of their own gender.

True story.

Why do you keep posing the same questions that have been answered ad nauseam?

Is it insanity or stupidity?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Says you. The law says otherwise.

Now what?

So then you appear to agree same sex heterosexuals should be granted the right to marry, OR explain the societal harm that could possibly happen by extending this right to couples that do not want to have sex with each other?

 

[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

So you think that sisters cannot be gay?

Incest:
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other

Now post the part of the law in which sex is a requirement, and my argument is that the sisters are heterosexuals

I know this is hard for you to beleive (which is strange), there actually are people that don't want to have sex with members of their own gender.

True story.

Why do you keep posing the same questions that have been answered ad nauseam?

Is it insanity or stupidity?

In your case only a good clinical psychologist could answer that.

 

[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.

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

So you think that sisters cannot be gay?

Incest:
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other

Now post the part of the law in which sex is a requirement, and my argument is that the sisters are heterosexuals

I don't have to. There is a law that prohibits close relatives from marrying - regardless of whether they claim they will have sex of not. Most people consider sexual activity among family members as incest, that you know of some that want to be married but are not interested in having sex is irrelevant.

I know this is hard for you to beleive (which is strange), there actually are people that don't want to have sex with members of their own gender.

Are you stupid? Of course I believe it, I am one of them. What I don't understand is your belief that sisters or brothers cannot be gay and may want to engage in incestuous relations just like some heterosexuals - er, like Josh Duggar.

True story.

What is the story?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Oh, indeed not, I'm showing that same sex marriage advocates are perhaps the biggest bigots there are. Let me post a perfect example.

Both of the following female couples wish to marry so that they can share the benefits and protections of the institution. All four of the couples are single mothers and by marrying, they feel they can better raise their children.

Couple A: Mary and June

Couple B: Mary and June.

Which of the above couple is denied the right to Marry?

Based on the information you provide, none of them should be denied under current law. However, if June in couple A happens to be a cow, then they should be denied.
If Mary in couple B happens to be a child, then they should be denied also. What's your point?

Cows and children are not eligible marry,

Exactly, that is why it would be denied.

Ok, since you need to deflect I will add:

All are over the age of consent, and all are human beings.

Again, based on just that information, they are all allowed. But, if one of the couples are siblings, they would be denied because there is a law that prohibits it. What is your problem understanding that? If you want to change that law, then you need to write your Congressman, or convince enough people that it is okay. You can't do something that is against the law....don't you understand that?

What is my problem with that? Other than it's absurd, nothing.

What possible societal harm comes from allowing the couple made up of same sex heterosexual sisters the right to marry so they can enjoy those benefits and to help raise their children?

Give it a shot, admitting there could be none is really not that hard.

 

[Seawytch]

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

So you think that sisters cannot be gay?

Incest:
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other

Now post the part of the law in which sex is a requirement, and my argument is that the sisters are heterosexuals

I know this is hard for you to beleive (which is strange), there actually are people that don't want to have sex with members of their own gender.

True story.

Why do you keep posing the same questions that have been answered ad nauseam?

Is it insanity or stupidity?

In your case only a good clinical psychologist could answer that.

I asked one. She said it was pure stupidity and bigotry on your part. Good advice, thanks.

(Means I can read and laugh at your posts in a dismissive manner)