It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

 

[Pop23]

Point? I came in to answer a same sex marriage post.

No you didn't. You came here insisting what we were talking about was the 'purpose of marriage', when no one was discussing it.

And then predictably tried to shift the topic to your bizarro incest fallacy.

There's nothing else to you.

Please show how two heterosexual sisters, wanting marriage in order to better raise their children is incestuous.

Again with the false analogy fallacy. Same sex marriage isn't incest. Making your direct comparison yet another fallacy.

But then you did directly equate same sex marriage with slavery. So with blunders like that, what should I expect?

Nope, didn't, but then again, you're perspective is suspect, so Ya got that goin for ya

So you're denying saying this?

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.

Laughing....why deny it? Its not like your post magically disappears because its now inconvenient to your argument.

And just FYI.....homosexuality isn't slavery. Or incest.

I said that, of course, but it speaks of how the courts have changed existing law, not that slavery and homosexuality are the same.

But to an OCD afflicted mind like yours, it's not surprising you would.

 

[Pop23]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

And here I thought that he actually knew two sisters that were being denied their rights, who figured out if they got married they would be able to get those benefits, and professed to him that they were not interested in sex and he thought that maybe we could change the law for him.........

I know many single mothers, related or not, that could benefit greatly from this. If you don't it simply proves you don't get out much.

 

[Mertex]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

And here I thought that he actually knew two sisters that were being denied their rights, who figured out if they got married they would be able to get those benefits, and professed to him that they were not interested in sex and he thought that maybe we could change the law for him.........

I know many single mothers, related or not, that could benefit greatly from this. If you don't it simply proves you don't get out much.

Then you're wasting your time explaining it to me and others here.......when you could be doing something to help them. Have you written your Congressman? Have you started a petition? I think you're making the whole shit up, but then, that appears to be the only thing that you can use to try and justify why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed and it didn't really work out for you.

 

[Syriusly]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

 

[Skylar]

No you didn't. You came here insisting what we were talking about was the 'purpose of marriage', when no one was discussing it.

And then predictably tried to shift the topic to your bizarro incest fallacy.

There's nothing else to you.

Please show how two heterosexual sisters, wanting marriage in order to better raise their children is incestuous.

Again with the false analogy fallacy. Same sex marriage isn't incest. Making your direct comparison yet another fallacy.

But then you did directly equate same sex marriage with slavery. So with blunders like that, what should I expect?

Nope, didn't, but then again, you're perspective is suspect, so Ya got that goin for ya

So you're denying saying this?

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.

Laughing....why deny it? Its not like your post magically disappears because its now inconvenient to your argument.

And just FYI.....homosexuality isn't slavery. Or incest.

I said that, of course, but it speaks of how the courts have changed existing law, not that slavery and homosexuality are the same.

You cited slavery when we were speaking of homosexuality. Your false analogy was ludicrious and you know it. Just as your homosexuality to incest equivalence is.

You're trolling. And you'll be treated as troll. As you should be.

 

[Pop23]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

How is two same sex hetro sisters marrying an incestuous relationship?

I've asked you this many times. Still no answer

 

[Pop23]

Please show how two heterosexual sisters, wanting marriage in order to better raise their children is incestuous.

Again with the false analogy fallacy. Same sex marriage isn't incest. Making your direct comparison yet another fallacy.

But then you did directly equate same sex marriage with slavery. So with blunders like that, what should I expect?

Nope, didn't, but then again, you're perspective is suspect, so Ya got that goin for ya

So you're denying saying this?

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.

Laughing....why deny it? Its not like your post magically disappears because its now inconvenient to your argument.

And just FYI.....homosexuality isn't slavery. Or incest.

I said that, of course, but it speaks of how the courts have changed existing law, not that slavery and homosexuality are the same.

You cited slavery when we were speaking of homosexuality. Your false analogy was ludicrious and you know it. Just as your homosexuality to incest equivalence is.

You're trolling. And you'll be treated as troll. As you should be.

I once mentioned a Red bus in the same sentence as PBR. That does not mean that the Red Bus was a cheap beer.

But I guess those afflicted with OCD might make that crazy connection.

 

[Mertex]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

How is two same sex hetro sisters marrying an incestuous relationship?

I've asked you this many times. Still no answer

It has been answered........more than once.

So let's try again. How are two heterosexual sisters, wishing to marry so they can better raise their children a societal harm?

And it has been answered over and over......obviously you are unable to read.

There is no societal harm as far as I'm concerned, but it is against the law. It has been told to you that if you want to change the law, you have to do whatever you have to do to convince others and/or write your Congressman. Do you really want me to go hunt the posts where that was told to you?

You are now just deflecting......you have painted yourself into a corner and the only thing you can do is repeat your asinine question over and over and ignore the responses.

If that isn't the definition of insanity, I don't know what is.

 

[Skylar]

Again with the false analogy fallacy. Same sex marriage isn't incest. Making your direct comparison yet another fallacy.

But then you did directly equate same sex marriage with slavery. So with blunders like that, what should I expect?

Nope, didn't, but then again, you're perspective is suspect, so Ya got that goin for ya

So you're denying saying this?

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.

Laughing....why deny it? Its not like your post magically disappears because its now inconvenient to your argument.

And just FYI.....homosexuality isn't slavery. Or incest.

I said that, of course, but it speaks of how the courts have changed existing law, not that slavery and homosexuality are the same.

You cited slavery when we were speaking of homosexuality. Your false analogy was ludicrious and you know it. Just as your homosexuality to incest equivalence is.

You're trolling. And you'll be treated as troll. As you should be.

I once mentioned a Red bus in the same sentence as PBR. That does not mean that the Red Bus was a cheap beer.

It wasn't the same sentence. It was a reply with those lovely words 'just like' where you equated homosexuality with slavery.

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.

But keep backpedalling. It makes me giggle.

 

[Seawytch]

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)

If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal, I'd get a full And complete refund.

You do realize that it is already, right? Homosexuality is accepted as normal. Welcome to the 21st Century, Rip.

 

[Seawytch]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

How is two same sex hetro sisters marrying an incestuous relationship?

I've asked you this many times. Still no answer

You got the answer, you just don't like it.

 

[Seawytch]

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

And......

Yeah......and apples grow on trees. What's your point?

You googled that fact, didn't you?

Another attempt at deflection?

Deflection. False analogy fallacies. Strawmen.

If not for fallacies, his posts would be little more than punctuation.

Just point and laugh. I like showing Pops posts to sane people when they don't believe folks like him actually exist.

 

[Boss]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Isn't it amazing how, even back then, they didn't mention the possibility of leading to same-sex marriage? That was such a wild and ridiculous consideration they didn't even bring it up. Yet look where we are today? Loving v. State of Virginia wasn't that long ago. Once you start to remove moral constraints and parameters, it doesn't take long to get to any extreme.

I mean... here you are, justifying homosexual marriage on the same basis as civil rights for blacks. Just as in the future, there will be people justifying other sexual behavior on the basis of civil rights for gays. Oh, it's not the same thing, you will say... but homosexual and interracial marriage aren't the same thing either. As you demonstrate, they don't have to be the same thing to be exploited.

The Loving decision regarding bans on interracial marriage were about equal access to something other similar groups had access to. Blacks were specifically being denied a right afforded to others on the basis of skin color. No one has been denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. It is not a requirement for you to be heterosexual. It's not prohibited from homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Isn't it amazing how, even back then, they didn't mention the possibility of leading to same-sex marriage?
That was such a wild and ridiculous consideration they didn't even bring it up. Yet look where we are today? Loving v. State of Virginia wasn't that long ago. Once you start to remove moral constraints and parameters, it doesn't take long to get to any extreme.

Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?

 

[Syriusly]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Isn't it amazing how, even back then, they didn't mention the possibility of leading to same-sex marriage? That was such a wild and ridiculous consideration they didn't even bring it up. Yet look where we are today? Loving v. State of Virginia wasn't that long ago. Once you start to remove moral constraints and parameters, it doesn't take long to get to any extreme.
.

'moral constraints and parameters'- like inter-racial marriage bans.

If you want to think that Loving v. Virginia led to Obergefell- I wouldn't disagree with that.

But neither Loving or Obergefell have led to incestuous marriage- which is what you and the State of Virginia were arguing.

Congratulations to Boss- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

 

[Boss]

Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?

Certain Christians believed it was at the time because that is what their preacher told them. It was a different time. The immutable truth is, it's impossible to not have an interracial marriage, unless maybe you're a Jew. We're ALL mixed race. But there was no discrimination happening for Cherokee-Cubans marrying Asian-Scandinavians. It was a specific law intended to prevent blacks from marrying whites. This is why it was struck down, it violated the rights of black people. It didn't violate them because it didn't allow them to do what they wanted, it violated them because it discriminated against them on the basis of their race.

But again... look at the "moral outrage" argument made back then... they didn't even bring up the possibility of this leading to men marrying men. That shows you how completely out of whack this idea is. No one ever dreamed that we would redefine marriage as a result of striking down bans on interracial marriage. If the people who were "morally outraged" at the time had brought up this as a possibility, they would have been dismissed as total delusional nutbags... which they were already, but that would have made them look even more ridiculous.... even THEY knew better than to be so cray-cray!

 

[Boss]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Isn't it amazing how, even back then, they didn't mention the possibility of leading to same-sex marriage? That was such a wild and ridiculous consideration they didn't even bring it up. Yet look where we are today? Loving v. State of Virginia wasn't that long ago. Once you start to remove moral constraints and parameters, it doesn't take long to get to any extreme.
.

'moral constraints and parameters'- like inter-racial marriage bans.

If you want to think that Loving v. Virginia led to Obergefell- I wouldn't disagree with that.

But neither Loving or Obergefell have led to incestuous marriage- which is what you and the State of Virginia were arguing.

Congratulations to Boss- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

I am arguing now that we've redefined marriage on the basis of sexuality and given authority to the court to determine what we call marriage, all bets are off. We have no more control over what is to come in the future, it will be decided for us whether we agree or not. The same legal arguments made for gay marriage can be made for any number of other sexual proclivities and the same "equal protection" has to be applied if we're to be consistent with the Constitution. So while it may be easy to dismiss these things now, you're not going to have that option in the future. You've ceded that power to the courts and since you advocate for a secular system, the court will rule in a secular manner, meaning your concepts and ideas of "morality" are gone. We're on the road the Romans took and there ain't no turning back.

 

[Syriusly]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Isn't it amazing how, even back then, they didn't mention the possibility of leading to same-sex marriage? That was such a wild and ridiculous consideration they didn't even bring it up. Yet look where we are today? Loving v. State of Virginia wasn't that long ago. Once you start to remove moral constraints and parameters, it doesn't take long to get to any extreme.
.

'moral constraints and parameters'- like inter-racial marriage bans.

If you want to think that Loving v. Virginia led to Obergefell- I wouldn't disagree with that.

But neither Loving or Obergefell have led to incestuous marriage- which is what you and the State of Virginia were arguing.

Congratulations to Boss- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

The same legal arguments made for gay marriage can be made for any number of other sexual proclivities .

And those were the same arguments made in opposition to mixed race marriage bans

You were the one who referenced 'moral constraints' in relation to Loving v. Virginia.

Congratulations to Boss- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.


.

 

[Syriusly]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Isn't it amazing how, even back then, they didn't mention the possibility of leading to same-sex marriage? That was such a wild and ridiculous consideration they didn't even bring it up. Yet look where we are today? Loving v. State of Virginia wasn't that long ago. Once you start to remove moral constraints and parameters, it doesn't take long to get to any extreme.
.

'moral constraints and parameters'- like inter-racial marriage bans.

If you want to think that Loving v. Virginia led to Obergefell- I wouldn't disagree with that.

But neither Loving or Obergefell have led to incestuous marriage- which is what you and the State of Virginia were arguing.

Congratulations to Boss- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

You've ceded that power to the courts and since you advocate for a secular system, the court will rule in a secular manner, .

I do truly hope that the courts continue to rule in a 'secular' manner- as opposed to ruling in a faith based manner.