It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

In context, if marriage is not soley between a man and a woman, then the exclussion of all family members to marry is arbitrary at best.

Not too closely related is the function of the statute that protects society from the harm of defective bloodlines.

Same sex couples can not cause this harm, so excluding them, based on the possibility that opposite sex related couples may procreate is arbitrary.

In order to form a new family is also then absurd, as the state has no reasonable legal interest in the formation of what constitutes a family, when or how families create.

And in the end, marriage requires sex in the same way an LLC requires sex. They don't.

The government is arbitrarily denying access to one financially beneficial arrangement, but no others?

Why?

There is no compelling state interest unless you accept the notion is that either:

A. Tradition should rule the day

Or

B. Procreation

Choose

Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

You did think this through. That's ok.

And as I stated before.......

Dredd Scott was overturned

Good for you.

I like short concession speaches.

Thanks

Sure, uh-huh. nothing makes you feel better than thinking you've won, right?

Not true, knowing I've won is far more satisfying. Which I did.

 

[Faun]

if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor?

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage. Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.

I couldn't care less if what deranged folks like you think of my morals. And there is no problem. You only think there is because you are fucking deranged.

C'est la vie

Can that gay man contract with his gay sister in an LLC? Of course, there is no compelling state interest in denying this couple this right. Sexual contact is not a requirement of the formation of the partnership.

Can the gay man contract with his gay sister in the formation of a marriage partnership? Sexual contact is not a requirement in the formation of the partnership.


What is the compelling state interest in denial of the right.

Easily answered prior to Obergfell. Not so easy now.

You understand you are making the same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites.

Making you a racist.

How sad for you

And me the progressive

You truly are dumb enough to believe a marriage is nothing more than an LLC.

Since you believe this, explain why no marriages have LLC following their name?

Not until you explain why you think sex is a requirement of marriage.

Uh-oh, I didn't say it is.

Dayam, there goes another argument of yours getting splattered like a bug on the windshield of the USMB 18-wheeler.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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.

Well Boss , no flamming, it just seems to be that homosexuality has been a normal human condition for a very long time.
Ultimately it's just a matter of personal choice, just as some people tend to feel attracted to people with different or the same skin color.

 

[Faun]

Again, for the 413th time ... if your argument had merit, gay opposite-sex siblings would have been allowed to marry years ago.

You did think this through. That's ok.

And as I stated before.......

Dredd Scott was overturned

Good for you.

I like short concession speaches.

Thanks

Sure, uh-huh. nothing makes you feel better than thinking you've won, right?

Not true, knowing I've won is far more satisfying. Which I did.

Nothing says congratulations like patting yourself on the back, eh?

 

[Boss]

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

LMFAOooo... Hey doofus... Men weren't allowed to marry men since the country's inception! What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything?

You're supposed to be presenting a compelling state interest for prohibiting it.

You have... as usual... FAILED!

 

[Faun]

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

LMFAOooo... Hey doofus... Men weren't allowed to marry men since the country's inception! What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything?

You're supposed to be presenting a compelling state interest for prohibiting it.

You have... as usual... FAILED!

Too fucking deranged.

Such a reason has been explained to you. Time and time again. You're just not capable of comprehending. No skin off my back.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well Boss , no flamming, it just seems to be that homosexuality has been a normal human condition for a very long time.
Ultimately it's just a matter of personal choice, just as some people tend to feel attracted to people with different or the same skin color.

No, homosexuality has never been a "normal" human condition. ALL sexual behavior is a matter of personal choice. We don't redefine things and restructure society to "normalize" other sexual behavior.

 

[Boss]

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

LMFAOooo... Hey doofus... Men weren't allowed to marry men since the country's inception! What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything?

You're supposed to be presenting a compelling state interest for prohibiting it.

You have... as usual... FAILED!

Too fucking deranged.

Such a reason has been explained to you. Time and time again. You're just not capable of comprehending. No skin off my back.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

No it HASN'T been explained... you people keep CLAIMING it has but it HASN'T.

"It's illegal because it's illegal!" does not constitute an argument.

Gay Marriage was ALSO illegal in many states until SCOTUS ruled it couldn't be any longer.

MORE FAIL!

 

[Faun]

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

LMFAOooo... Hey doofus... Men weren't allowed to marry men since the country's inception! What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything?

You're supposed to be presenting a compelling state interest for prohibiting it.

You have... as usual... FAILED!

Too fucking deranged.

Such a reason has been explained to you. Time and time again. You're just not capable of comprehending. No skin off my back.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

No it HASN'T been explained... you people keep CLAIMING it has but it HASN'T.

"It's illegal because it's illegal!" does not constitute an argument.

Gay Marriage was ALSO illegal in many states until SCOTUS ruled it couldn't be any longer.

MORE FAIL!

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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.

Well Boss , no flamming, it just seems to be that homosexuality has been a normal human condition for a very long time.
Ultimately it's just a matter of personal choice, just as some people tend to feel attracted to people with different or the same skin color.

No, homosexuality has never been a "normal" human condition. ALL sexual behavior is a matter of personal choice. We don't redefine things and restructure society to "normalize" other sexual behavior.

Ok, it was common enough in Rome and Greece. In the middle ages even such thing as paired saints existed.
Closer to the present Kinsey reported a 2% of people were homosexuals long before there was any legalization on course.

As far as they keep their sexual behavior private ,just as most people do, I can't see the what's the fracking problem.
Mind you , as I commented regarding interracial weddings, many Americans considered it unnatural not that long ago ( Special Ed will probably be able to rant at length about it) . Is it unnatural that two persons from different races feel attracted? Well, no , not from my point of view.

Now , you might find aesthetically unpleasent looking at two men or women kissing, which is an absolutely acceptable point of view, so, no offense should be taken if you would rather look the other way...but condemning it?

 

[Boss]

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.

Well Boss , no flamming, it just seems to be that homosexuality has been a normal human condition for a very long time.
Ultimately it's just a matter of personal choice, just as some people tend to feel attracted to people with different or the same skin color.

No, homosexuality has never been a "normal" human condition. ALL sexual behavior is a matter of personal choice. We don't redefine things and restructure society to "normalize" other sexual behavior.

Ok, it was common enough in Rome and Greece. In the middle ages even such thing as paired saints existed.
Closer to the present Kinsey reported a 2% of people were homosexuals long before there was any legalization on course.

As far as they keep their sexual behavior private ,just as most people do, I can't see the what's the fracking problem.
Mind you , as I commented regarding interracial weddings, many Americans considered it unnatural not that long ago ( Special Ed will probably be able to rant at length about it) . Is it unnatural that two persons from different races feel attracted? Well, no , not from my point of view.

Now , you might find aesthetically unpleasent looking at two men or women kissing, which is an absolutely acceptable point of view, so, no offense should be taken if you would rather look the other way...but condemning it?

It doesn't matter about ancient Rome or Greece, it has never been "normal" sexual activity. Amazing that you think 2% constitutes "normal."

We see how your "as long as they keep it private" viewpoint lasted.

This is not about race. Virtually every person on this planet is mixed race. No one is 100% white or 100% black. Laws against "interracial marriage" were a ruse for discriminating against black men who wanted to marry white women, plain and simple. Both pairs of my great grandparents were "interracial marriages" and they weren't prohibited because it wasn't a black man marrying a white woman. We did not have to redefine what marriage is in order to strike down a racist law.

It's also not about aesthetics or what I personally like to see or not see. This is about 28-33% of the country getting the right combination of activist judges on the SCOTUS to pass a 5-4 ruling which redefines the tradition of marriage (against the will of the people) and declare it to be a right based on sexual behavior, while excluding a host of other "less desirable" sexual behaviors without any consideration as to how that's going to ultimately turn out.

It's about totally abandoning our social morality to be like ancient Rome and Greece.
Abandoning morality turned out really well for them, didn't it?

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

And you're still not presenting any compelling state interest to keep incest illegal or not codify incestophile marriage into law the same as homosexual marriage has been. You keep regurgitating the same boneheaded circular reasoning accompanied by the very same arguments made against gay marriage, as if suddenly all those arguments become relevant again!

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

And you're still not presenting any compelling state interest to keep incest illegal or not codify incestophile marriage into law the same as homosexual marriage has been. You keep regurgitating the same boneheaded circular reasoning accompanied by the very same arguments made against gay marriage, as if suddenly all those arguments become relevant again!

You're fucking deranged. Show me where the argument against legalizing gay marriage wad because homosexuality is illegal.... You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue rationally. You just make deranged shit up off the pointy top of your conservative head.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

And you're still not presenting any compelling state interest to keep incest illegal or not codify incestophile marriage into law the same as homosexual marriage has been. You keep regurgitating the same boneheaded circular reasoning accompanied by the very same arguments made against gay marriage, as if suddenly all those arguments become relevant again!

You're fucking deranged. Show me where the argument against legalizing gay marriage wad because homosexuality is illegal.... You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue rationally. You just make deranged shit up off the pointy top of your conservative head.

faunt faunt faunt... nooo... the "It's illegal therefore it can't be legal" argument is circular reasoning. The "it's not what marriage has always been" argument is the same argument used to oppose gay marriage.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

And you're still not presenting any compelling state interest to keep incest illegal or not codify incestophile marriage into law the same as homosexual marriage has been. You keep regurgitating the same boneheaded circular reasoning accompanied by the very same arguments made against gay marriage, as if suddenly all those arguments become relevant again!

You're fucking deranged. Show me where the argument against legalizing gay marriage wad because homosexuality is illegal.... You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue rationally. You just make deranged shit up off the pointy top of your conservative head.

faunt faunt faunt... nooo... the "It's illegal therefore it can't be legal" argument is circular reasoning. The "it's not what marriage has always been" argument is the same argument used to oppose gay marriage.

No, you dumbfuck. My argument isn't incestuous marriage can't be legal because it's illegal. That was your argument over same-sex marriage. My argument is incestuous marriage can't be legal because incest is illegal.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't follow along with even simple logic? This is exactly the reason you're still fighting this fight... because you're not capable of understanding what people are telling you.

 

[Boss]

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

And you're still not presenting any compelling state interest to keep incest illegal or not codify incestophile marriage into law the same as homosexual marriage has been. You keep regurgitating the same boneheaded circular reasoning accompanied by the very same arguments made against gay marriage, as if suddenly all those arguments become relevant again!

You're fucking deranged. Show me where the argument against legalizing gay marriage wad because homosexuality is illegal.... You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue rationally. You just make deranged shit up off the pointy top of your conservative head.

faunt faunt faunt... nooo... the "It's illegal therefore it can't be legal" argument is circular reasoning. The "it's not what marriage has always been" argument is the same argument used to oppose gay marriage.

No, you dumbfuck. My argument isn't incestuous marriage can't be legal because it's illegal. That was your argument over same-sex marriage. My argument is incestuous marriage can't be legal because incest is illegal.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't follow along with even simple logic? This is exactly the reason you're still fighting this fight... because you're not capable of understanding what people are telling you.

I have no problem following simple logic but you are dancing a jig in a circle.

Homosexuality was illegal a few years ago... it became legal when they struck down sodomy laws because the court found the state had no compelling interest. So I have asked you what the "compelling interest" is for banning incest, specifically, gay incest, and you've not provided any. Montro tried but he sounded like Jerry Falwell explaining to me how we were concerned it might lead to danger to children and harm society...the same exact MORAL arguments made and rejected when they struck down sodomy laws. You guys "legal argument" isn't giving me much comfort.

So... just like homosexuality was illegal a few years ago and now it's a protected constitutional right which has to be included in marriage law.... tell me why the same cannot apply to other sexual behaviors like incest or gay incest? And when those laws are eventually struck down for lack of compelling interest, why can't those people have the same rights to marriage as homosexuals?

Maybe this is too complicated of a subject for your retarded brain?

 

[Pop23]

Years ago we didn't have the precedent of the Ogeberfell ruling... we have it now. That changes things. It has now been established by SCOTUS that your right to marry can't be denied on the basis of sexuality... and in this specific case, gender. Before Ogeberfell, we could prohibit sibling marriage because of the humanitarian concerns over procreation.. doesn't matter about sexuality. Marriage was a union of a male and female, it's not anymore. So what about two gay brothers? What about two bisexual sisters? How about a brother and sister who can prove procreation wouldn't be a factor?

Obergefell has no bearing on a gay man wanting to marry his gay sister. That would be a man and a woman wanting to marry each other in a country where men were allowed since it's inception. Yet never allowed and still not allowed. Obergfell does not impact that at all.

Before OddballFail, you were all warned this would be a problem and you laughed it off. You're still laughing it off while some of you casually mention that you are "still undecided" on issues like polygamy and sibling marriage. Yeah... we know... as soon as Whoopie, Oprah and Ellen dedicate a few TV shows to it, you'll all be carrying that banner next. Sewer rats actually have more morals than you people.

I couldn't care less if what deranged folks like you think of my morals. And there is no problem. You only think there is because you are fucking deranged.

C'est la vie

Can that gay man contract with his gay sister in an LLC? Of course, there is no compelling state interest in denying this couple this right. Sexual contact is not a requirement of the formation of the partnership.

Can the gay man contract with his gay sister in the formation of a marriage partnership? Sexual contact is not a requirement in the formation of the partnership.


What is the compelling state interest in denial of the right.

Easily answered prior to Obergfell. Not so easy now.

You understand you are making the same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites.

Making you a racist.

How sad for you

And me the progressive

You truly are dumb enough to believe a marriage is nothing more than an LLC.

Since you believe this, explain why no marriages have LLC following their name?

Not until you explain why you think sex is a requirement of marriage.

Uh-oh, I didn't say it is.

Dayam, there goes another argument of yours getting splattered like a bug on the windshield of the USMB 18-wheeler.

Then why do you insist that a pair of heterosexual brothers be denied the right to marry?

It was impossible prior to Obergfell, it is at least plausible now yet you claim Obergfell changed nothing?

How warped has your bigotry made you lil fella?

 

[Pop23]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

Prior to Obergfell a same sex couple could not marry either.

You are making the exact same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites. Making you a racist and an idiot.

The illegal activity is what?

You realize that sex is not a qualification to marry, correct?

Because two people pledge to each other does not mean they intend sexual contact, or the States would disqualify family members from corporate membership altogether.

Do you never tire of running in circles?