It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Seawytch]

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.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

 

[Faun]

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.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

Don't let these morons fool you. Most straight men love lesbians.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Try that one. No fault divorce and all.

Concider that, if sex is an obligation in marriage, then the state is forcing people to have sex to maintain a right. If that's the case, then the state can't prosecute a husband for rape and the state can require certain kinds of sex as the qualifier

 

[Pop23]

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.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

That's idiotic.

Does your marriage license require that you do?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

 

[Faun]

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.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

 

[Pop23]

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.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

And why did SeaWytch imply you were having sex with her?

 

[Faun]

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.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

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

Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

 

[Faun]

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

Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yet the Courts didn't find the law unconstitutional because of 'segregation'- they found the law unconstitutional under the Equal Treatment clause of the 14th Amendment- exactly as the court ruled in Obergefel.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

Prove it.

Prove any of what you claim.

Just curious to see if you will even try.

 

[Pop23]

Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Because it was an exvluded pairing that applied equally to all eligible couples. The reason was to do everything possible to stop defective bloodlines (at least goverment licensed defective bloodlines)

The equitable application of the law, for a specific purpose made such a prohibition meet equal protection qualifications.

Now it's absurd, since brothers cannot procreate with each other and now same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Sorry dude, your side changed the single qualification that made this possible.

Aren't you proud?

 

[Pop23]

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

Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

Prove it.

Prove any of what you claim.

Just curious to see if you will even try.

Prove legal theory?

Ok, name the compelling state interest in denying two heterosexual brothers the right to reap the economic benefits of marriage?

Answer, there is none.

See how easy that was?

 

[Pop23]

Nice to see your support for same-sex marriage.

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

And you come to that conclussion how?

If not for same sex marriage their would be no denial of rights to family marriage. Closely related marriage is likely a very bad thing for society, and I oppose it, yet the question remains as to how to demonstrate a compelling state interest in denial of a right into an institution that does not require sexual activity to qualify for?

Can you come up with that compelling state interest?

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

 

[Faun]

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Because it was an exvluded pairing that applied equally to all eligible couples. The reason was to do everything possible to stop defective bloodlines (at least goverment licensed defective bloodlines)

The equitable application of the law, for a specific purpose made such a prohibition meet equal protection qualifications.

Now it's absurd, since brothers cannot procreate with each other and now same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Sorry dude, your side changed the single qualification that made this possible.

Aren't you proud?

Why would I be proud that you're retarded?

Again, you said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. To that end, you even suggested two brothers should be allowed to marry each other because they could be heterosexual.

The same holds true for opposite gendered siblings. Yet they still couldn't marry even when marriage was limited to a man and a woman.

You can't even see the fatal gaping head wound in your position, can you?

 

[Faun]

Uh Faun...we DO have sex

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

How, you ask? You're the one making the case that marriage isn't about sex. That means there's no reason to deny two men from marrying each other.

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

 

[Pop23]

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Because it was an exvluded pairing that applied equally to all eligible couples. The reason was to do everything possible to stop defective bloodlines (at least goverment licensed defective bloodlines)

The equitable application of the law, for a specific purpose made such a prohibition meet equal protection qualifications.

Now it's absurd, since brothers cannot procreate with each other and now same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Sorry dude, your side changed the single qualification that made this possible.

Aren't you proud?

Why would I be proud that you're retarded?

Again, you said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. To that end, you even suggested two brothers should be allowed to marry each other because they could be heterosexual.

The same holds true for opposite gendered siblings. Yet they still couldn't marry even when marriage was limited to a man and a woman.

You can't even see the fatal gaping head wound in your position, can you?

Dear Faun the Pawn:

No male family member could marry a too closely related female.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not, that was a qualification of obtaining a license. AND it applied across the board, and for sound reason. The reason was that by doing this, NO GOVERNMENT LICENSED MARRIAGE COULD RESULT IN INCESTUOUS DEFECTIVE BLOODLINES.

Did not matter if sex was a requirement or not.

Now YOUR side was successful in adding eligible type couples to the mix. The overall ban is absurd unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in denying otherwise eligible partners that just happen to be heterosexual brothers, from the economic benefits of marriage.

I get it, you can't. So Ya got your additional five minutes of attention whore time.

As the Aussies say

Good on Ya sport.

 

[Pop23]

We don't care that you have sex with faun.

Who knows what that even means? I'm nrith

There is no qualification, true, now that the requirement that the marriage be between one man and one woman, In order to create a new family unit has been thrown under the bus, and since there is no qualification that sex be a requirement of marriage.......

What is the possible compelling state interest in denying ANY COUPLE a civil marriage license?

If that were true, and it's really your delusion, brothers would have been allowed to marry each other all along.

Ya see ... this is where your delusion crumbles in the stark face of reality.

Are you really that stupid?

All family members that could marry were prohibited because marriage was between a man and a woman. Men procreate with Women (something that may surprise you) and making all family members ineligible was equitable. Now, we have eligible partners that can't possibly procreate, so the prohibition is inequitable and a violation of equal protection.

So, tell me Faun, what is the compelling state interest in denying this right to marry to heterosexual brothers?

You said marriage isn't about sex. So why have brothers not been allowed to marry their sisters?

This is your argument; maybe that's why it sounds so stupid to you?

Oh, and don't misquote me, I said that sex isn't a requirement of marriage nor is it required as a qualification to marry.

And yet, a brother couldn't marry his sister. Who knows why you think that changes now that men can marry men and women can marry women?

You came up with the arguments, deal with it.

Here it is, what is the compelling state interest.........

The dumbass Faun never has an answer.