It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

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

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. !

Yeah- they just said it would ending mixed race marriage bans would lead to incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You know- just like you say ending same gender marriage bans will lead to the same thing.

Congratulations for echoing the arguments made by the racists.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Again, you're making up an imaginary version of history. It was overturned as it violated the rights of a white man and a black woman. Richard and Mildred Loving.

With interracial marriage bans being the 'moral constraints' that you insist were knocked down. What possible 'moral constraint' is created by interracial marriage bans?

You didn't actually answer my question.

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it? Its been half a century of contradiction of your assertion.

 

[Faun]

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?

You appear to be mistaken.

Again.

 

[Faun]

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!

That's quite the fervent imagination you've got there.

... oh ... and you're still fucking deranged.

 

[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.

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!

That's quite the fervent imagination you've got there.

... oh ... and you're still fucking deranged.

Why would you think that someone who says this is 'deranged'?

Boss:
One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges.

Imagine how ridiculous it would sound if I said:

One of these days, i look forward for some Christian lobby to push for a law which makes it against the law for gay men to have consensual sex in private.

Oh wait......Christians already did that.......and only the Supreme Court recognized that those Christians were violating the rights of Americans.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

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. !

Yeah- they just said it would ending mixed race marriage bans would lead to incestuous and polygamous marriage.

WOW! Talk about PROPHECY!

Thats he thing about lowering standards, it NEVER results in higher performance... and always promotes decay and degeneracy.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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. !

Yeah- they just said it would ending mixed race marriage bans would lead to incestuous and polygamous marriage.

WOW! Talk about PROPHECY!

Thats he thing about lowering standards, it NEVER results in higher performance... and always promotes decay and degeneracy.

Well if anyone has an intimate experience with decay and degeneracy it is you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges.

Is Boss a Little Boy? I didn't realize that... .

The reason I ask, is that One of these days, the gay lobby will push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in the mouth or ass of little boys so as to accommodate their sexual urges.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it?

It did... it simply lead to such, through the legal pretense of marriage by Homosexuals.

But hey... such is the nature of slippery slopes.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

you're ... deranged.

 

[Faun]

you're ... deranged.

Moans the idiot who thinks of himself as a sexual deviant.

 

[Skylar]

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it?

It did... it simply lead to such, through the legal pretense of marriage by Homosexuals.

But hey... such is the nature of slippery slopes.

It didn't. Its been 50 years since Loving v. Virginia. Not a single state has recognized incest marriage. Its been 10 years since same sex marriage was first legalized in the US. Still not a single state has recognized incest marriage.

Perhaps you mean 'will lead' is a geological sense. Where the time frame you're talking about span several ice ages or the collision of continents and such.

Remember, Keyes.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

you're ... deranged.

Moans the idiot who thinks of himself as a sexual deviant.

Who believes he speaks for God and has elaborate murderous fantasies about gay people being killed.

 

[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.

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.


.

It doesn't matter if the same concerns were raised, the situations are different. Loving was about discrimination based on race. There was no discrimination against gay people, they were allowed to do what everyone was allowed to do, they wanted to do something different and call it the same thing. That's not discrimination unless it's also discrimination to prohibit hebephiles or zoophiles from doing what they do and calling it marriage. We don't have the right to do whatever we want and call that marriage or scream discrimination.

 

[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.

Again, you're making up an imaginary version of history. It was overturned as it violated the rights of a white man and a black woman. Richard and Mildred Loving.

With interracial marriage bans being the 'moral constraints' that you insist were knocked down. What possible 'moral constraint' is created by interracial marriage bans?

You didn't actually answer my question.

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it? Its been half a century of contradiction of your assertion.

I did not say that interracial bans were moral constraints, you're putting words in my mouth. I explained how people of the time thought it was a moral issue, I didn't say I agreed with them or that the ruling shouldn't have ever been made. I guess those are your assumptions but I've not said that.

I don't have to defend the arguments made by those who opposed interracial marriages. I am not going to sit here and allow you to turn this into Boss debating on behalf of racist bans on interracial marriage. If you think I am going to let you get away with doing that, you're more goofy than you look.

It was overturned because "marriage" was a real thing that people did but black people weren't allowed to do with white people because of their skin color. Gay marriage is not a real thing, it's not something anyone was allowed to do. There is not a discrimination when you're not being allowed to do something no one else is allowed to do.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Again, you're making up an imaginary version of history. It was overturned as it violated the rights of a white man and a black woman. Richard and Mildred Loving.

With interracial marriage bans being the 'moral constraints' that you insist were knocked down. What possible 'moral constraint' is created by interracial marriage bans?

You didn't actually answer my question.

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it? Its been half a century of contradiction of your assertion.

I did not say that interracial bans were moral constraints, you're putting words in my mouth. I explained how people of the time thought it was a moral issue, I didn't say I agreed with them or that the ruling shouldn't have ever been made. I guess those are your assumptions but I've not said that.

I don't have to defend the arguments made by those who opposed interracial marriages. I am not going to sit here and allow you to turn this into Boss debating on behalf of racist bans on interracial marriage. If you think I am going to let you get away with doing that, you're more goofy than you look.

It was overturned because "marriage" was a real thing that people did but black people weren't allowed to do with white people because of their skin color. Gay marriage is not a real thing, it's not something anyone was allowed to do. There is not a discrimination when you're not being allowed to do something no one else is allowed to do.

Marriage was a real thing that people did but women weren't allowed to do with women because of their gender.

 

[Faun]

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.


.

It doesn't matter if the same concerns were raised, the situations are different. Loving was about discrimination based on race. There was no discrimination against gay people, they were allowed to do what everyone was allowed to do, they wanted to do something different and call it the same thing. That's not discrimination unless it's also discrimination to prohibit hebephiles or zoophiles from doing what they do and calling it marriage. We don't have the right to do whatever we want and call that marriage or scream discrimination.

That doesn't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. Gays did not have the same rights as others; who unlike gays, were legally allowed to marry the one they love. Which despite your painful ignorance, is the primary reason most people marry.

 

[Syriusly]

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges.

Is Boss a Little Boy? I didn't realize that... .

The reason I ask, is that One of these days, the gay lobby will push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in the mouth or ass of little boys so as to accommodate their sexual urges.

Yes- I am sure that deviants like you do believe that- because of course- you have no concept of what consent. is.

 

[Syriusly]

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it?

It did... it simply lead to such, through the legal pretense of marriage by Homosexuals.

But hey... such is the nature of slippery slopes.

You are still upset about the slippery slope that allowed black men to marry white women.

 

[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.


.

It doesn't matter if the same concerns were raised, the situations are different. Loving was about discrimination based on race. There was no discrimination against gay people,n.

Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.

Just like you- Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

Just like men could marry anyone that they wanted- as long as it was not another man.

You are just repeating the arguments of the State of Virginia.

But after all- you must still be upset that the Supreme Court told the State of Virginia that they could not ban mixed race marriages.