It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.

But that's discrimination against incestophiles. You're making the "black men can still marry black women" argument. Incestophiles are sexually attracted to incest regardless of whether gay or straight. It is their sexuality just like homosexuality is a gay person's sexuality.

And keep in mind... gay people were already treated equally under the law too. A gay man could marry any woman he could find that would marry him... not a problem. Many-a-gay man have.

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

Homosexuals represent a group of people with a sexuality... Incestophiles represent a group of people with a sexuality. Why does one group enjoy access to a law while another group is denied equal protection?

The question continues to be raised and no one seems to be able to coherently present an answer that isn't exactly the same argument made against gay marriage. It comes down to a "moral judgement" of sexuality. That's why the answers are often flighty and vague.. "If you don't know why we don't allow THAT then I can't help you!" or... "We all know THAT is wrong!" Then some pinhead strains his brain nerve and comes out with something sounding like a Christian fundie "Oh, we can't allow it because THAT is harmful to children and a threat to society!"

So typical of the hypocrites on the left. You somehow think you can dance around this issue and not face any consequences of your decisions. Like someone died and made you the Moral Gods of Earth and only YOU can get to decide what is right and wrong for society... we just need to shut up and let you rule!

For the first time today, I saw a post from someone talking about polygamy and the pro-gay-marriage liberal popped off... "I've never said that I am opposed to polygamy, I am still undecided on that issue..." Now, just a short time back, this was laughed off as a joke that anyone would ever even remotely think about going there... "We Have Laws Against THAT-- Stupid!" That's what we heard before gay marriage was created by SCOTUS decree. Suddenly, this is now "undecided" with some libs. Give it a few special episodes of Ellen and Oprah with some heart-wrenching story of inequity and the liberal pro-gay marriage crowd will be toting the banner! Next will be the hebephiles... then the incestophiles.. then the zoophiles. Just like little social dominoes.... each one falling as the libs incredulously claim the next is simply ridiculous fear mongering.

 

[guno]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

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... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth

I bet you and your fellow wingnuts are salivating for that day , with relish

 

[Pop23]

Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And again, Dredd Scott must still be the law of the land, Right?

 

[Pop23]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.

Idiot, you need to provide evidence that marriage requires sex, or you are creating an arbitrary law which violates the due process of those entering into the contract.

Get it.

Without men being only allowed to marry women, the "too closely related" clause becomes complete foolishness, that is, once again, unless you find a statute that requires sex as a part of marriage.

All citizens are innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Incest is a crime.

You've already abandoned your plea on incestuous marriage. Remember?

Point it out. And point out how marriage must be incestuous without it requiring sex as a requirement

Your side created this quagmire, not mine

 

[Pop23]

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

Are you too stupid to think nobody saw your deflection goat head?

That's what you call having your ass handed to you? A deflection?

No, I call your deflection another admission of defeat.

 

[Pop23]

Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

 

[Seawytch]

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

And you're assuming anyone gives a shit that you are arguing quite forcefully to marry your sister. Go for it. File your case.

 

[Pop23]

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

And you're assuming anyone gives a shit that you are arguing quite forcefully to marry your sister. Go for it. File your case.

Link to that specific post or admit the lie.

You realize you're exhibiting homophobic tendencies SeaWytch. You would deny the rights and benefits of marriage to millions of potential partners, not to mention the dignity of married partners to those partners children simply because their pairings cannot produce offspring!

NEWSFLASH

SeaWytch and Faun are HOMOPHOBES!

Why do homosexuals frighten you Wytch, or is this simply a symptom of your OCD?

 

[Seawytch]

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

And you're assuming anyone gives a shit that you are arguing quite forcefully to marry your sister. Go for it. File your case.

Link to that specific post or admit the lie.

You realize you're exhibiting homophobic tendencies SeaWytch. You would deny the rights and benefits of marriage to millions of potential partners, not to mention the dignity of married partners to those partners children simply because their pairings cannot produce offspring!

NEWSFLASH

SeaWytch and Faun are HOMOPHOBES!

Why do homosexuals frighten you Wytch, or is this simply a symptom of your OCD?

Oh, it's for others to marry their siblings. How generous of you. You are still quite the ardent defender. Incestuous couples lionize you I'm sure.

I'm not denying anything to anyone. I support your support...now run along and file your case, hero of the incestuous.

 

[Pop23]

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

And you're assuming anyone gives a shit that you are arguing quite forcefully to marry your sister. Go for it. File your case.

Link to that specific post or admit the lie.

You realize you're exhibiting homophobic tendencies SeaWytch. You would deny the rights and benefits of marriage to millions of potential partners, not to mention the dignity of married partners to those partners children simply because their pairings cannot produce offspring!

NEWSFLASH

SeaWytch and Faun are HOMOPHOBES!

Why do homosexuals frighten you Wytch, or is this simply a symptom of your OCD?

Oh, it's for others to marry their siblings. How generous of you. You are still quite the ardent defender. Incestuous couples lionize you I'm sure.

I'm not denying anything to anyone. I support your support...now run along and file your case, hero of the incestuous.

Are you admitting there is no compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings from marrying? Then no court case is required as it is a civil right issue and state legislature have a duty to address it.

Incestuous couples?

You must do something then that no other poster has yet been able to produce. That is the statute requiring sex in a marriage. If not, you're simply projecting your own perverted thought process on others.

Did you forget all my post in which I state quite clearly that I oppose family marriage? Of course you didn't. But then, instead of admitting defeat and the lie, your OCD controlled mind made you post an untruth.

Sucks to be you I guess

 

[Pop23]

Boss

Your assertion that homosexual marriage will be killed is only half right, what dies is marriage as a state licensed institution. It dies not for the reasons you state, but under its own weight.

The marketing campaign "gay marriage " was incredibly successful, but anyone with half a brain sees that Obergfell didn't legalize gay marriage, it legalized same sex marriage. Those are remarkably different critters

There simply is no reason that millions upon millions of single Americans not buddy up with a friend, pay the fee for a license and enjoy lower health insurance costs, tax breaks and the other financial breaks that licence brings.

Best part is, only keep the licence until you find someone you really want to spend the rest of your life with.

The license does not require the partners to have sex, be in love, be faithful, be devoted, cohabitate or just about anything else. It just requires a meeting of the minds, a small fee and a signature.

Get a license, share in your partners lower cost couples health insurance and tax breaks and when you've saved enough for that new car or whatever gizmo you want, file a non contested divorce.

This will place heavy burdens on governmental entities and reduce tax receipts.

Think the government will stand idly by and watch that train wreck?

 

[Seawytch]

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

And you're assuming anyone gives a shit that you are arguing quite forcefully to marry your sister. Go for it. File your case.

Link to that specific post or admit the lie.

You realize you're exhibiting homophobic tendencies SeaWytch. You would deny the rights and benefits of marriage to millions of potential partners, not to mention the dignity of married partners to those partners children simply because their pairings cannot produce offspring!

NEWSFLASH

SeaWytch and Faun are HOMOPHOBES!

Why do homosexuals frighten you Wytch, or is this simply a symptom of your OCD?

Oh, it's for others to marry their siblings. How generous of you. You are still quite the ardent defender. Incestuous couples lionize you I'm sure.

I'm not denying anything to anyone. I support your support...now run along and file your case, hero of the incestuous.

Are you admitting there is no compelling state interest in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings from marrying? Then no court case is required as it is a civil right issue and state legislature have a duty to address it.

Incestuous couples?

You must do something then that no other poster has yet been able to produce. That is the statute requiring sex in a marriage. If not, you're simply projecting your own perverted thought process on others.

Did you forget all my post in which I state quite clearly that I oppose family marriage? Of course you didn't. But then, instead of admitting defeat and the lie, your OCD controlled mind made you post an untruth.

Sucks to be you I guess

It's not me you have to convince. I don't care. You are the one arguing so passionately for legal status for incestuous relationships, not me. I support your support. File your case.

 

[Faun]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.

But that's discrimination against incestophiles. You're making the "black men can still marry black women" argument. Incestophiles are sexually attracted to incest regardless of whether gay or straight. It is their sexuality just like homosexuality is a gay person's sexuality.

And keep in mind... gay people were already treated equally under the law too. A gay man could marry any woman he could find that would marry him... not a problem. Many-a-gay man have.

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

Homosexuals represent a group of people with a sexuality... Incestophiles represent a group of people with a sexuality. Why does one group enjoy access to a law while another group is denied equal protection?

The question continues to be raised and no one seems to be able to coherently present an answer that isn't exactly the same argument made against gay marriage. It comes down to a "moral judgement" of sexuality. That's why the answers are often flighty and vague.. "If you don't know why we don't allow THAT then I can't help you!" or... "We all know THAT is wrong!" Then some pinhead strains his brain nerve and comes out with something sounding like a Christian fundie "Oh, we can't allow it because THAT is harmful to children and a threat to society!"

So typical of the hypocrites on the left. You somehow think you can dance around this issue and not face any consequences of your decisions. Like someone died and made you the Moral Gods of Earth and only YOU can get to decide what is right and wrong for society... we just need to shut up and let you rule!

For the first time today, I saw a post from someone talking about polygamy and the pro-gay-marriage liberal popped off... "I've never said that I am opposed to polygamy, I am still undecided on that issue..." Now, just a short time back, this was laughed off as a joke that anyone would ever even remotely think about going there... "We Have Laws Against THAT-- Stupid!" That's what we heard before gay marriage was created by SCOTUS decree. Suddenly, this is now "undecided" with some libs. Give it a few special episodes of Ellen and Oprah with some heart-wrenching story of inequity and the liberal pro-gay marriage crowd will be toting the banner! Next will be the hebephiles... then the incestophiles.. then the zoophiles. Just like little social dominoes.... each one falling as the libs incredulously claim the next is simply ridiculous fear mongering.

You're fucking deranged.

You're again idiotically comparing homosexuality to incest. You're comparing being black to incest.

But you're an abject imbecile who can't comprehend none of those are the same. Furthermore, incest is illegal ... being black or gay is not.

 

[Faun]

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And again, Dredd Scott must still be the law of the land, Right?

Nope, Dredd Scott was overturned. The same cannot be said about gay opposite-sex siblings getting married. That still remains illegal, therefore, your argument remains the tattered pieces of crumbs laying on the floor its been since the start.

 

[Faun]

I said a group cannot enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of other in that group.

So homosexuals can't enjoy access to a law if it violates the equal protection of incestophiles?

They're already treated equally under the law -- no immediate family members can marry each other. Gay incestuous marriage is treated the same as straight incestuous marriage.

Idiot, you need to provide evidence that marriage requires sex, or you are creating an arbitrary law which violates the due process of those entering into the contract.

Get it.

Without men being only allowed to marry women, the "too closely related" clause becomes complete foolishness, that is, once again, unless you find a statute that requires sex as a part of marriage.

All citizens are innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Incest is a crime.

You've already abandoned your plea on incestuous marriage. Remember?

Point it out. And point out how marriage must be incestuous without it requiring sex as a requirement

Your side created this quagmire, not mine

Umm, there is no quagmire other than the ones inside your own head.

 

[Faun]

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

Are you too stupid to think nobody saw your deflection goat head?

That's what you call having your ass handed to you? A deflection?

No, I call your deflection another admission of defeat.

Good for you ... you run with that.

 

[Faun]

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

You didn't read the post you responded to, did you?

Here it is again, and this time note, I said nothing about married people having sex in it...

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.​

... now then, you will note (hopefully), marriage between a man and a woman who are immediate family, have never been allowed to marry.

I know this upsets you because to blows your argument to smithereens, but you'll just have to deal with that. Just like you'll have to deal with [non-immediate family] gays being allowed to legally marry.

 

[Pop23]

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And again, Dredd Scott must still be the law of the land, Right?

Nope, Dredd Scott was overturned. The same cannot be said about gay opposite-sex siblings getting married. That still remains illegal, therefore, your argument remains the tattered pieces of crumbs laying on the floor its been since the start.

Without a single counter argument.

Yep, must be shattered.

You can't make this stuff up

 

[Montrovant]

The reasons for those laws have not changed because of Obergefel. You're clinging to stupid because you think you found a way down the slippery slope because of Obergefell with incestuous marriage ... but you didn't.

The law for as long as I can tell prohibited a gay brother from marrying his gay sister. That's the end of your argument. You just don't know it yet.

Yet you continue to advocate tradition as the basis for good law "for as long as I remember".

Clue: Dredd Scott was overturned.

If my arguments are without merit, and Obergfell, did not create any arbitrary condition within the law, blow it out of the water by supplying the compelling State Intetest that the State has in denying two same sex siblings this right.

Funny you can't.

I already have. You're just too stupid to pay attention. The state doesn't track who does or does not have sex. The presumption is that married couples do. So the state could not allow a brother and sister to marry even if they were gay. It's not about tradition. Who knows where you plucked that from?

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Wait. If marriage is not between one man and one woman and sex is not a requirement of marriage it is arbitrary? Only monogamous opposite gender marriage has reasoning behind it?

 

[Pop23]

Find me the statute then that states married couples must have sex to have a valid contract known as marriage.

Clue #2. There is none.

Without it, and without the couples being of opposite gender we have no compelling State interest in denying same sex brothers from marrying.

Try that presumption gambit in court, the presumption granted in court is the individuals presumption of innocence. Not the other way around. We do not live in a police state.

So I will try again, name the States compelling interest in denial of this right to the individual.

Wisconsin.

First cousins are allowed to marry only if they prove that they cannot procreate together.

Siblings are not allowed to marry regardless of whether they can procreate or not.

Why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but not siblings?

I dunno, but since the law now reads that marriage is not solely between one man and woman, and sex is not a requirement to marry, it's now arbitrary.

Sorry Shirley, that's how it works

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.

And yet you assume those wanting to marry will have sex. You can't explain it since the law does not make entering into the contract a requirement.

Can you explain your perverted line of reasoning?

You didn't read the post you responded to, did you?

Here it is again, and this time note, I said nothing about married people having sex in it...

Sex has never been a requirement of marriage. That has not changed. Marriage laws have always allowed a man to marry a woman. That too has not changed. Yet immediate family members were never allowed to marry and still aren't. And nothing has changed to alter that.​

... now then, you will note (hopefully), marriage between a man and a woman who are immediate family, have never been allowed to marry.

I know this upsets you because to blows your argument to smithereens, but you'll just have to deal with that. Just like you'll have to deal with [non-immediate family] gays being allowed to legally marry.

Correct, when marriage was only between a man and a woman, for some reason people MUCH brighter than you than added.......

Not too closely related.

Why do you suppose they did that, yet never made that a requirement in any other contract in the entire country.

Things that make you go ummmmm?

Obviously you have zero perspective, you're OCD