It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

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.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.
.

Feel free to find any quotes which actually support your claims- I don't think you can.

No one made a successful argument that siblings must be allowed to marry other siblings.

Are you just actually completely ignorant about what the argument before the courts were- or are you lying?

I suspect some of the first- and a whole lot of the last.

 

[Syriusly]

Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans. Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh

And in those arguments the requirement that the two licensed individuals remained one man and one woman with no possibility of incest occurring.

Nope- once again you are just lying.

You are just as bigoted as those bigots who argued that mixed race marriage bans served a vital moral purpose.

 

[Syriusly]

No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.

It's coming folks. As sure as I am sitting here, it is coming.

Yeah- just like the rapture. Just like the end of days.

We hear these idiotic claims all of the time.

My recent favorite included the 'blood moon'.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related. It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together.

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.

Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal.

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?

You failed to provide an answer to group A.

Please do so that we may proceed

 

[Pop23]

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.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.
.

Feel free to find any quotes which actually support your claims- I don't think you can.

No one made a successful argument that siblings must be allowed to marry other siblings.

Are you just actually completely ignorant about what the argument before the courts were- or are you lying?

I suspect some of the first- and a whole lot of the last.

God you are a simpleton.

I using the exact same supportive arguments that led us to this point dimwit, but you knew that, right?

 

[Syriusly]

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.
.

Feel free to find any quotes which actually support your claims- I don't think you can.

No one made a successful argument that siblings must be allowed to marry other siblings.

Are you just actually completely ignorant about what the argument before the courts were- or are you lying?

I suspect some of the first- and a whole lot of the last.

God you are a simpleton.

I using the exact same supportive arguments that led us to this point dimwit, but you knew that, right?

No- you are just pulling crap out of your ass, and then claiming it is what was said in courts.

Which is why you never actually provide any evidence for your claims- you just pull crap out of your ass.

 

[Pop23]

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.
.

Feel free to find any quotes which actually support your claims- I don't think you can.

No one made a successful argument that siblings must be allowed to marry other siblings.

Are you just actually completely ignorant about what the argument before the courts were- or are you lying?

I suspect some of the first- and a whole lot of the last.

God you are a simpleton.

I using the exact same supportive arguments that led us to this point dimwit, but you knew that, right?

No- you are just pulling crap out of your ass, and then claiming it is what was said in courts.

Which is why you never actually provide any evidence for your claims- you just pull crap out of your ass.

If anyone knows about pulling crap out (and into) ones ass, it surely is you.

You deflect all you want dimwit.

 

[Faun]

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related. It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together.

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.

Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal.

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?

You failed to provide an answer to group A.

Please do so that we may proceed

Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.
.

Feel free to find any quotes which actually support your claims- I don't think you can.

No one made a successful argument that siblings must be allowed to marry other siblings.

Are you just actually completely ignorant about what the argument before the courts were- or are you lying?

I suspect some of the first- and a whole lot of the last.

God you are a simpleton.

I using the exact same supportive arguments that led us to this point dimwit, but you knew that, right?

No- you are just pulling crap out of your ass, and then claiming it is what was said in courts.

Which is why you never actually provide any evidence for your claims- you just pull crap out of your ass.

If anyone knows about pulling crap out (and into) ones ass, it surely is you.

You deflect all you want dimwit.

Just you pulling more crap out your ass. Must get crowded in there with all of those straw men you have stuffed in it.

 

[Seawytch]

No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.

Yes, black men were being discriminated against and not allowed to marry white women. There was no gender discrimination with marriage, it was the union of two genders. It was not prohibited on basis of skin color or sexuality. You had to fundamentally change what marriage is in order to make it a discrimination, and it's that fundamental change that will be the problem in the future

Is it intentional obtuseness? Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, therefore it was argued that no discrimination occurred...just like you're arguing that there is no discrimination because I could have married a man. They wanted to discriminate based on race, you on gender.

The reality of truth here is, you don't care. IF it leads to legal polygamy... so what? That was going to happen anyway... you've already got your convenient excuse ready! When sibling marriage is demanded, you'll find a way to crab walk over and support that or you'll just shrug and say, what are ya gonna do? When the perverts come for our children, you'll be lamenting how all this 'age of consent' stuff is rooted in religion and needs to go anyway, so what's the big deal... it's not hurting you or your marriage... sit down and shut up!

It's coming folks. As sure as I am sitting here, it is coming.

Why would we suddenly start lowering the age of consent simply because gays can civilly marry when the AOC has only gone up historically?

Back when being gay was a crime, 65 year olds could legally marry 12 year olds.

Why would that trend reverse?

You're right, I don't care about polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult. Same thing kinda goes for siblings too.

The bigots were sure we'd legalize all those things when Loving was ruled on too. Same bigots, different decade.

 

[Pop23]

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related. It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together.

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.

Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal.

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?

You failed to provide an answer to group A.

Please do so that we may proceed

Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

 

[Faun]

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related. It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together.

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.

Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal.

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?

You failed to provide an answer to group A.

Please do so that we may proceed

Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.

 

[Pop23]

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related. It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together.

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.

Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal.

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?

You failed to provide an answer to group A.

Please do so that we may proceed

Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.

HUH?

Heterosexuals do not have sex with there own sex.

You see where this is going and have started the back track.

I get that.

Not sure why you think incest can occur without the act, but apparently you do.

 

[Faun]

Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal.

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?

You failed to provide an answer to group A.

Please do so that we may proceed

Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.

HUH?

Heterosexuals do not have sex with there own sex.

You see where this is going and have started the back track.

I get that.

Not sure why you think incest can occur without the act, but apparently you do.

Who knows what you think I'm backtracking?

Incest is illegal. If two brothers want to marry each other, how on Earth does the government know they are platonic?? Is there a check box on a marriage license application to indicate you're not interested in having sex with the person you're marrying?

 

[Pop23]

You failed to provide an answer to group A.

Please do so that we may proceed

Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.

HUH?

Heterosexuals do not have sex with there own sex.

You see where this is going and have started the back track.

I get that.

Not sure why you think incest can occur without the act, but apparently you do.

Who knows what you think I'm backtracking?

Incest is illegal. If two brothers want to marry each other, how on Earth does the government know they are platonic?? Is there a check box on a marriage license application to indicate you're not interested in having sex with the person you're marrying?

You are aware of the legal concept of burdon of proof, right?

 

[Pop23]

Don't have to. You're arguing about incest. Group A is not committing incest.

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.

HUH?

Heterosexuals do not have sex with there own sex.

You see where this is going and have started the back track.

I get that.

Not sure why you think incest can occur without the act, but apparently you do.

Who knows what you think I'm backtracking?

Incest is illegal. If two brothers want to marry each other, how on Earth does the government know they are platonic?? Is there a check box on a marriage license application to indicate you're not interested in having sex with the person you're marrying?

You are aware of the legal concept of burdon of proof, right?

And you have yet to show a marriage law that requires sex.

 

[Boss]

Is it intentional obtuseness? Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, therefore it was argued that no discrimination occurred.

But it did because that is segregation.

 

[Dragonlady]

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.

HUH?

Heterosexuals do not have sex with there own sex.

You see where this is going and have started the back track.

I get that.

Not sure why you think incest can occur without the act, but apparently you do.

Who knows what you think I'm backtracking?

Incest is illegal. If two brothers want to marry each other, how on Earth does the government know they are platonic?? Is there a check box on a marriage license application to indicate you're not interested in having sex with the person you're marrying?

You are aware of the legal concept of burdon of proof, right?

And you have yet to show a marriage law that requires sex.

If you deny your partner sex, it's grounds for divorce.

 

[Seawytch]

Is it intentional obtuseness? Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, therefore it was argued that no discrimination occurred.

But it did because that is segregation.

Segregation and anti miscegenation are two different things. Your arguments mirror those of the racist bigots of the 60s. I know you say you don't care, but it's worth pointing out to you...AGAIN.

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government. (the anti gay bigots use this one all the time don't they?)

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage. (I'm pretty sure you've done that repeatedly in this thread regarding gays)

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and (We've seen that one over and over in this thread)

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." (this one too)

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years. (and still being used by Boss in his desire to discriminate against gays)

​

 

[Faun]

Let's be clear then, there is no compelling state interest in denying group A, but then you would say there is a compelling state interest in denying group B?

Do I have this correct?

No, you don't. The compelling argument for group A is that incest is illegal and it's not the government's job to spy in peoples' bedroom to make sure they're not having sex.

Legalize incest, and then you'll have a compelling argument.

HUH?

Heterosexuals do not have sex with there own sex.

You see where this is going and have started the back track.

I get that.

Not sure why you think incest can occur without the act, but apparently you do.

Who knows what you think I'm backtracking?

Incest is illegal. If two brothers want to marry each other, how on Earth does the government know they are platonic?? Is there a check box on a marriage license application to indicate you're not interested in having sex with the person you're marrying?

You are aware of the legal concept of burdon of proof, right?

And you have yet to show a marriage law that requires sex.

Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.