It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

Uh, no it isn't in the U.S.. it's the union of two consenting people over the age of consent.

Denial is not a river.

You really don't understand the law, do you?

The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?

What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand.

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand

You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the fucking deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.

So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not.

You would exclude hetro's because gays would? It doesn't work that way.

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.

No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today.

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage.

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest.

You must be so proud.

Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?

You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with.

You?

 

[Pop23]

You really don't understand the law, do you?

The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?

What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand.

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand

You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the fucking deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.

So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not.

You would exclude hetro's because gays would? It doesn't work that way.

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

 

[Faun]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.

No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today.

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage.

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest.

You must be so proud.

Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?

You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with.

You?

Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.

 

[Faun]

The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?

What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand.

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand

You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the fucking deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.

So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not.

You would exclude hetro's because gays would? It doesn't work that way.

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

 

[Faun]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

They can't answer your question because the truth is, you are correct. So they accuse you of making a "straw man" argument and proceed to ridicule and laugh at a notion that, when the time comes, they'll proudly stand up and make the arguments for. You can read it in their replies now... all it will take is a few 'very special episodes' of Oprah... Ellen... Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopie... Suddenly, when it becomes the "in-thing" these loony tunes will be all over it. They have no morals... they are sheep waiting to be led.

Too stupid. His question has been andwered. It doesn't become not answered because he ignores the answers he gets.

 

[Pop23]

What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand.

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand

You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the fucking deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.

So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not.

You would exclude hetro's because gays would? It doesn't work that way.

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.

No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today.

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage.

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest.

You must be so proud.

Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?

You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with.

You?

Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.

Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.

 

[Faun]

And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.

You're so fucking deranged, it's entertaining. The war IS over. You're like the Japanese who kept fighting after we nuked them.

 

[Faun]

Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.

No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today.

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage.

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest.

You must be so proud.

Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?

You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with.

You?

Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.

Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.

That's not my answer. I've given my answer. You either don't like it or you don't understand it.

 

[Faun]

You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the fucking deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.

So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not.

You would exclude hetro's because gays would? It doesn't work that way.

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

 

[Faun]

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.

How sad you think that is all marriage is.

 

[Pop23]

No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today.

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage.

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest.

You must be so proud.

Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?

You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with.

You?

Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.

Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.

That's not my answer. I've given my answer. You either don't like it or you don't understand it.

Again with the because you say so chit.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.

How sad you think that is all marriage is.

Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.

 

[Faun]

Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?

You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with.

You?

Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.

Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.

That's not my answer. I've given my answer. You either don't like it or you don't understand it.

Again with the because you say so chit.

That wasn't my answer either; proving it's not that you didn't like it -- you really didn:t understand it.

 

[Pop23]

So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not.

You would exclude hetro's because gays would? It doesn't work that way.

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

 

[Pop23]

You asking me?

I know which sex to breed with.

You?

Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.

Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.

That's not my answer. I've given my answer. You either don't like it or you don't understand it.

Again with the because you say so chit.

That wasn't my answer either; proving it's not that you didn't like it -- you really didn:t understand it.

And you have zero clue as to what incest is. You seem to think incest can occur with no participating individuals.

Again, seek help. You need it

 

[Faun]

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.

How sad you think that is all marriage is.

Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.

Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are fucking clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"

 

[Faun]

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

Of course it applies. Incest is illegal regardless of the make up of genders. You think it's the government's job to monitor a couple's bedroom to make sure they're not having sex?

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.

How sad you think that is all marriage is.

Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.

Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are fucking clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"

So the law gave you more than a set of legal benefits? I suppose it gave you love? How nice for you.

My relationship with my wife is none of your business dimwit, but the government added nothing to it except for a few useful benefits that helped us raise our kids.

You?