It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Mertex]

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....

Hold on! ...We didn't let the country decide on gay marriage. We let the court legislate it from the bench. They aren't elected by the people, there is no political consequence for them. This was clearly NOT decided by The People, and I think that is what some people's big issue here is. I am all in favor of allowing states to have votes and decide if they want to marry gay couples. It's the involvement of the federal government and SCOTUS that I am concerned with. Especially, the tampering and fiddling with the Constitution! There was no "rights" issue here. There was no need for SCOTUS to hear this case.

It was decided based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment. And basically because of national approval of homosexuality.

Wiki:
Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution.

The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Later in the century, cultural and political developments al- lowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public atti- tudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal dis- course of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

What you're in favor of is irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Bigotry and dishonesty.

That is the root of all of Pop's posts where he tries to equate homosexuality to incest.

Yet I am the one who constantly asked how two same sex heterosexual sisters could be associated with the act of incest when, by nature, they would not have sex?

Is the lack of sex what's upsetting you?

What's the opposite of Kinky?

Who said a thing about hetoreosexual sisters?

Again, Pop......homosexuality isn't incest. Nor is it slavery. Nor is it any of the other batshit nonsense you try to equate it to.

So beyond your incest schtick.....do you have anything to add to the discussion? Because your ilk appear to have abandoned their various sundry arguments and fled.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

Bigotry and dishonesty.

That is the root of all of Pop's posts where he tries to equate homosexuality to incest.

Yet I am the one who constantly asked how two same sex heterosexual sisters could be associated with the act of incest when, by nature, they would not have sex?

Is the lack of sex what's upsetting you?

What's the opposite of Kinky?

'Vanilla' is the accepted term for opposite of kinky.

 

[Skylar]

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....

Hold on! ...We didn't let the country decide on gay marriage. We let the court legislate it from the bench. They aren't elected by the people, there is no political consequence for them. This was clearly NOT decided by The People, and I think that is what some people's big issue here is. I am all in favor of allowing states to have votes and decide if they want to marry gay couples. It's the involvement of the federal government and SCOTUS that I am concerned with. Especially, the tampering and fiddling with the Constitution! There was no "rights" issue here. There was no need for SCOTUS to hear this case.

It was decided based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment. And basically because of national approval of homosexuality.

Wiki:
Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution.

The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Later in the century, cultural and political developments al- lowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public atti- tudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal dis- course of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

What you're in favor of is irrelevant.

The core of Boss's arguments are profound and often imaginary pseudo-legal assertions. For example, that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the constitution. Or that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the State.

Its utter nonsense.

 

[Syriusly]

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 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?.

Once again- I refer to the language of the court. Remember, you don't need to convince us that you can marry your sibling- you need to convince the court

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

Why do I have to convince a judge? A human right or a civil right exusts with or without a court order.

Of course a bigot like you would think I'm such simplistic terms.

So what is the societal harm caused by two heterosexual sisters marrying so that their children can be better raised?

I await your attempt at independent thought.

See here is the thing- and we have been down this path before- I don't have to make your straw man dance.

I happen to believe that two people of the same gender should be able to marry exactly the same way as any opposite gender couple. In other words- I think Bob and Bill should be able to marry exactly as my wife and I married.

I am neither arguing for- or against siblings marrying. That is your straw man.

You are bigoted towards homosexuals, and pissed off that they can marry- so you want to equate sibling marriage to same gender marriage- because you oppose both- and want to be able to attack everyone who supports same gender marriage.

You want to either be able to attack us for a) not supporting sibling marriage- then you want to call us 'bigots' or attack anyone who does support sibling marriage as being "immoral' and supporting sibling marriage.

It is your straw man.

You want to marry your sibling go for it- you have the same right as homosexual couples to file a lawsuit- but you have to convince the courts- because it is illegal.

 

[Syriusly]

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....

Hold on! ...We didn't let the country decide on gay marriage. We let the court legislate it from the bench. They aren't elected by the people, there is no political consequence for them. This was clearly NOT decided by The People, and I think that is what some people's big issue here is. I am all in favor of allowing states to have votes and decide if they want to marry gay couples. It's the involvement of the federal government and SCOTUS that I am concerned with. Especially, the tampering and fiddling with the Constitution! There was no "rights" issue here. There was no need for SCOTUS to hear this case.

It was decided based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment. And basically because of national approval of homosexuality.

Wiki:
Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution.

The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Later in the century, cultural and political developments al- lowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public atti- tudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal dis- course of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

What you're in favor of is irrelevant.

The core of Boss's arguments are profound and often imaginary pseudo-legal assertions. For example, that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the constitution. Or that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the State.

Its utter nonsense.

Don't forget- since homosexuals can marry- he expects homosexuals to try to pass laws allowing them to rape him in public.

 

[Boss]

You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved.

I've been shown nothing. I have been inundated with your meaningless opinion which shits all over "equal protection" and the very arguments you've made to condone gay marriage. The only reason you've presented is because "we all know it's wrong" and that seems to be it. Are you using the Bible or Koran to determine sex with children and animals is wrong? I think it's important that we discuss this and come to an understanding as to where you base your morals.

Every indication thus far is that you don't really have many morals. The ones you have can be modified to include whatever because there is no consequence. This makes me think, when the hebephiles and polygamists challenge their equal protection under the law, you'll find a way to be on their side. And if you live long enough, you'll condone any other perverted thing that comes because you don't really have any morals. You want to pretend like you care about children but then... they are just clumps of cells when in the womb and a great source for body parts of living organisms when aborted.

Faun... is a bad name for you... it should be Fraud. That fits you perfectly!

 

[Mertex]

Why do I have to convince a judge? A human right or a civil right exusts with or without a court order.

Geez.....it's not rocket science.

Because it is the law! Before SSM was legalized by SCOTUS, homosexuals were not able to marry throughout the country because it was against the law....they needed a court order in order to change it. They got a court order. End of story.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Bigotry and dishonesty.

That is the root of all of Pop's posts where he tries to equate homosexuality to incest.

Yet I am the one who constantly asked how two same sex heterosexual sisters could be associated with the act of incest when, by nature, they would not have sex?

If you want incest between sisters to be legal, make your argument.

 

[Mertex]

Society accepted homosexuality long before SSM. Would say acceptance occured when you couldn't lock up homosexuals any more for being homosexuals.

There are many groups that society shuns, not all are in jail.

Like which groups? And what rights are they being denied? Are you still talking about the two imaginary sisters?

 

[Pop23]

If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal,

Newflash: Society has accepted homosexuality in the US as was proven with the Supreme Court legalizing ssm.

Oh, just like it accepted slavery and women as chattal.

Got it

Homosexuality isn't slavery. Just shredding your analogy.

But then, same sex marriage isn't incest. So False Analogy fallacies are apparently your bread and butter.

So how do two heterosexual single mothers that are sisters qualified as being incestuous?

Go ahead, give it a shot?

Who said that they did?

Go ahead, give it a shot. While you're struggling, I'll keep laughing at your last false analogy fallacy.

Deal?

Then Syriously's post from the judge is absurd.

Thanks

 

[Mertex]

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....

Hold on! ...We didn't let the country decide on gay marriage. We let the court legislate it from the bench. They aren't elected by the people, there is no political consequence for them. This was clearly NOT decided by The People, and I think that is what some people's big issue here is. I am all in favor of allowing states to have votes and decide if they want to marry gay couples. It's the involvement of the federal government and SCOTUS that I am concerned with. Especially, the tampering and fiddling with the Constitution! There was no "rights" issue here. There was no need for SCOTUS to hear this case.

It was decided based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment. And basically because of national approval of homosexuality.

Wiki:
Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution.

The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Later in the century, cultural and political developments al- lowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public atti- tudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal dis- course of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

What you're in favor of is irrelevant.

The core of Boss's arguments are profound and often imaginary pseudo-legal assertions. For example, that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the constitution. Or that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the State.

Its utter nonsense.

I think he's main butt hurt is that the Supreme Court didn't meet with him to hear his objections and went ahead and made ssm legal.

 

[Pop23]

Society accepted homosexuality long before SSM. Would say acceptance occured when you couldn't lock up homosexuals any more for being homosexuals.

There are many groups that society shuns, not all are in jail.

Like which groups? And what rights are they being denied? Are you still talking about the two imaginary sisters?

Did I say those groups had rights denied? Nope, just they are shunned and not jailed.

And......

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Bigotry and dishonesty.

That is the root of all of Pop's posts where he tries to equate homosexuality to incest.

Yet I am the one who constantly asked how two same sex heterosexual sisters could be associated with the act of incest when, by nature, they would not have sex?

If you want incest between sisters to be legal, make your argument.

Here is an image of Pop's dance partner.

 

[Skylar]

You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved.

I've been shown nothing. I have been inundated with your meaningless opinion which shits all over "equal protection" and the very arguments you've made to condone gay marriage.

You seem confused. What you're offering is meaningless opinion. The court's findings are binding legal precedent.You haven't refuted the equal protection argument. You've merely ignored it. That you ignore it has no particular relevance to us or the law.

And of course your other pseudo-legal gibberish remains nonsense. Your claim that a right must be enumerated in the constitution to exist is just ignorant babble. And your claim that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the States is more imaginary flotsam. The 9th amendment says no such thing. Or even mentions the States.

You hallucinated it all.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Related question occurs, why's is it so easy to condemn anyone's sexuality? Can't be all about religion, are far larger groups equally condemned. Fornicators and adulterers for instance. So why do we condemn whole groups of people we've never met who're absolutely no threat to us? Ignorance? Easier to condemn people you know nothing about than have to learn one more thing? Espeically if you don't even know your own sexual demographic yet?

 

[Pop23]

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....

Hold on! ...We didn't let the country decide on gay marriage. We let the court legislate it from the bench. They aren't elected by the people, there is no political consequence for them. This was clearly NOT decided by The People, and I think that is what some people's big issue here is. I am all in favor of allowing states to have votes and decide if they want to marry gay couples. It's the involvement of the federal government and SCOTUS that I am concerned with. Especially, the tampering and fiddling with the Constitution! There was no "rights" issue here. There was no need for SCOTUS to hear this case.

It was decided based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment. And basically because of national approval of homosexuality.

Wiki:
Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution.

The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Later in the century, cultural and political developments al- lowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public atti- tudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal dis- course of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

What you're in favor of is irrelevant.

The core of Boss's arguments are profound and often imaginary pseudo-legal assertions. For example, that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the constitution. Or that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the State.

Its utter nonsense.

I think he's main butt hurt is that the Supreme Court didn't meet with him to hear his objections and went ahead and made ssm legal.

It must be rough when you wake up one day and figure out that you are today's newest bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

You've been shown repeatedly (we're approaching 1000 posts) why marrying kids and animals will remain illegal despite same-sex marriage being approved.

Every indication thus far is that you don't really have many morals.

What kind of moral person makes bald faced lies like you do?

Answer- no moral person lies like you have done in this thread.

No moral person would make the attacks you have made in this thread.

 

[Skylar]

Newflash: Society has accepted homosexuality in the US as was proven with the Supreme Court legalizing ssm.

Oh, just like it accepted slavery and women as chattal.

Got it

Homosexuality isn't slavery. Just shredding your analogy.

But then, same sex marriage isn't incest. So False Analogy fallacies are apparently your bread and butter.

So how do two heterosexual single mothers that are sisters qualified as being incestuous?

Go ahead, give it a shot?

Who said that they did?

Go ahead, give it a shot. While you're struggling, I'll keep laughing at your last false analogy fallacy.

Deal?

Then Syriously's post from the judge is absurd.

Thanks

Or.....your latest false analogy fallacy fell flat. And you're desperately scrambling to change the topic.

Homosexuality still isn't slavery. Or incest. Or any of the other nonsense you equate it with.

Try again. This time without the obtuse fallacies of logic.

 

[Syriusly]

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....

Hold on! ...We didn't let the country decide on gay marriage. We let the court legislate it from the bench. They aren't elected by the people, there is no political consequence for them. This was clearly NOT decided by The People, and I think that is what some people's big issue here is. I am all in favor of allowing states to have votes and decide if they want to marry gay couples. It's the involvement of the federal government and SCOTUS that I am concerned with. Especially, the tampering and fiddling with the Constitution! There was no "rights" issue here. There was no need for SCOTUS to hear this case.

It was decided based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment. And basically because of national approval of homosexuality.

Wiki:
Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution.

The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Later in the century, cultural and political developments al- lowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public atti- tudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal dis- course of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

What you're in favor of is irrelevant.

The core of Boss's arguments are profound and often imaginary pseudo-legal assertions. For example, that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the constitution. Or that the 9th amendment assigns the determination of rights to the State.

Its utter nonsense.

I think he's main butt hurt is that the Supreme Court didn't meet with him to hear his objections and went ahead and made ssm legal.

It must be rough when you wake up one day and figure out that you are today's newest bigot.

Apparently Pop has come to terms with his chronic bigotry.