It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

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.

Faun, you fucked up again.

No contract is legal if it is entered for criminal purposes.

Good god, your an imbecile.

If entered into for criminal purposes, the contract is not valid and the state is not sanctioning it.

 

[Pop23]

Boss

Follow Fauns logic:

Incest is illegal, (which it is, married or not), and the State has a compelling state interest to deny citizens rights based on the POSSIBILITY alone that they might break this law. Due process be damned.

Faun has redefined our entire legal system.

Fauns logic is that, since incest is illegal, all citizens that have living family members can be denied their freedom because there exists the possibilty they may have sex together.

Faun is not only a bigot, a racist and a homophobe, but quite possibly a Nazi.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Again, that is only the start of the entire plan. Before we can do anything, we first have to remove the state from official association with marriage as an institution. Unless that is done, we'll never accomplish the rest. The next phase is to systematically eliminate governmental benefits associated with marriage, like the tax deduction for married couples. This all has to be done state-by-state since marriage is still a state institution. Federal tax laws can be changed, we can also change Social Security survivor benefits and how they are distributed as well as estate taxes and whatnot. Eventually, we whittle down all the perks of being married to where there really aren't any. THAT is when gay marriage begins to die a slow death.

We're already talking about a relatively small contingent of people who are gay and want to marry. Once the benefit to marriage is removed, there really is no motivation anymore. Most gays are not interested in a religious ceremony to codify their homosexual relationship in the eyes of God... just not reality. A few little sentimental ferries may still want to do it just to be different, but we're down to single digits across the country by then... you won't even be aware of them.

No bigot, you're wrong again. We got married before the cash and prizes, we'd still get married if you took away the cash and prizes.

What did your Congressman do when you called him or her and told them you wanted to end civil marriage? Are they still laughing?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Again, that is only the start of the entire plan. Before we can do anything, we first have to remove the state from official association with marriage as an institution. Unless that is done, we'll never accomplish the rest. The next phase is to systematically eliminate governmental benefits associated with marriage, like the tax deduction for married couples. This all has to be done state-by-state since marriage is still a state institution. Federal tax laws can be changed, we can also change Social Security survivor benefits and how they are distributed as well as estate taxes and whatnot. Eventually, we whittle down all the perks of being married to where there really aren't any. THAT is when gay marriage begins to die a slow death.

We're already talking about a relatively small contingent of people who are gay and want to marry. Once the benefit to marriage is removed, there really is no motivation anymore. Most gays are not interested in a religious ceremony to codify their homosexual relationship in the eyes of God... just not reality. A few little sentimental ferries may still want to do it just to be different, but we're down to single digits across the country by then... you won't even be aware of them.

No bigot, you're wrong again. We got married before the cash and prizes, we'd still get married if you took away the cash and prizes.

What did your Congressman do when you called him or her and told them you wanted to end civil marriage? Are they still laughing?

Well you racist, bigoted, homophobe, we are talking about civil marriage. If you had a completely legal civil marriage the entire time, you would have received these cash benefits all along.

Guess you didn't, huh?

Again, sucks to be you

 

[Pop23]

Marketing trick warning:

Make your argument about something other then what it is

They marketed same sex marriage as "gay marriage", which is not what the ultimate ruling would be. They knew this.

They get the David and Goliath vote, big verses little. Root for the underdog, simpleton vote, without ever having to discuss the aftermath until after the ruling.

Now they claim that same sex sibling marriage is incestuous, although they can't come up with a single statute that requires sex in marriage.

It's interesting that they made this argument possible because of an outstanding marketing campaign, then run from their own success.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Again, that is only the start of the entire plan. Before we can do anything, we first have to remove the state from official association with marriage as an institution. Unless that is done, we'll never accomplish the rest. The next phase is to systematically eliminate governmental benefits associated with marriage, like the tax deduction for married couples. This all has to be done state-by-state since marriage is still a state institution. Federal tax laws can be changed, we can also change Social Security survivor benefits and how they are distributed as well as estate taxes and whatnot. Eventually, we whittle down all the perks of being married to where there really aren't any. THAT is when gay marriage begins to die a slow death.

We're already talking about a relatively small contingent of people who are gay and want to marry. Once the benefit to marriage is removed, there really is no motivation anymore. Most gays are not interested in a religious ceremony to codify their homosexual relationship in the eyes of God... just not reality. A few little sentimental ferries may still want to do it just to be different, but we're down to single digits across the country by then... you won't even be aware of them.

No bigot, you're wrong again. We got married before the cash and prizes, we'd still get married if you took away the cash and prizes.

What did your Congressman do when you called him or her and told them you wanted to end civil marriage? Are they still laughing?

Well you racist, bigoted, homophobe, we are talking about civil marriage. If you had a completely legal civil marriage the entire time, you would have received these cash benefits all along.

Guess you didn't, huh?

Again, sucks to be you

Again poppy, you can take away the cash and prizes you straight folks gave yourself. By all means, try like hell to cut off your anti gay nose to spite your face. You won't succeed. You straight folks like your cash and prizes too much to even give them up because of the icky gays. Besides, anti gay bigots like you are the minority.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Again, that is only the start of the entire plan. Before we can do anything, we first have to remove the state from official association with marriage as an institution. Unless that is done, we'll never accomplish the rest. The next phase is to systematically eliminate governmental benefits associated with marriage, like the tax deduction for married couples. This all has to be done state-by-state since marriage is still a state institution. Federal tax laws can be changed, we can also change Social Security survivor benefits and how they are distributed as well as estate taxes and whatnot. Eventually, we whittle down all the perks of being married to where there really aren't any. THAT is when gay marriage begins to die a slow death.

We're already talking about a relatively small contingent of people who are gay and want to marry. Once the benefit to marriage is removed, there really is no motivation anymore. Most gays are not interested in a religious ceremony to codify their homosexual relationship in the eyes of God... just not reality. A few little sentimental ferries may still want to do it just to be different, but we're down to single digits across the country by then... you won't even be aware of them.

No bigot, you're wrong again. We got married before the cash and prizes, we'd still get married if you took away the cash and prizes.

What did your Congressman do when you called him or her and told them you wanted to end civil marriage? Are they still laughing?

Well you racist, bigoted, homophobe, we are talking about civil marriage. If you had a completely legal civil marriage the entire time, you would have received these cash benefits all along.

Guess you didn't, huh?

Again, sucks to be you

Again poppy, you can take away the cash and prizes you straight folks gave yourself. By all means, try like hell to cut off your anti gay nose to spite your face. You won't succeed. You straight folks like your cash and prizes too much to even give them up because of the icky gays. Besides, anti gay bigots like you are the minority.

Your crying is simply a distraction. Your argument would be refreshing though.

Once the general public finally grasp the absurdi Obergfell created, and the loss of public funding in many different ways because of it, they will realize just how bad Obergfell actually was.

There is no down side for something like the following to happen now:

A retired unioun plumber, in bad health and who's spouse died, could go to his buddy, who has no pension, high cost health care and simply marry him.

They do not have to live together, love each other, be faithful or any of the other "romantic" things traditionally associated with marriage.

His buddy, upon the death of the plumber, will recieve SS survivors benefits, survivors pension benifit and survivors health care benefits.

Think the IRS and the unioun will be rethinking these marriage relationships?

Those benefits will die under their own weight

All due to a simpleton ruling made by the USSC in favor of Obergfell.

Now take the above relationship and show me the downside to the two involved.

Once the general public see that financial benefit this could bring, it will become common, unless you can find a downside.

And this is just one example, there are many many other ways that individuals can now game the system.

These were held in check because of traditional values. Now? Not seeing it.

 

[Faun]

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?

What's too complicated is that regardless of how many times you're told the compelling interest is a higher than normal chance of birth defects, you still can't understand it.

 

[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.

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?

Obergefell did not suddenly allow immediate family members to marry. Your logic is seriously flawed. Your idiotic claim is that non-incestuous immediate family members should be allowed to marry now because of Obergefell, but you can't explain how Obergefell changed their status from being banned to being allowed. Non-incestuous immediate family members have never been allowed to marry and still can't Obergefell doesn't change that. All Obergefell changed was if a couple wants to marry, gender cannot prevent that. It had no impact on immediate family members who cannot marry regardless of the genders of the couple.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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?

The roman empire lasted four centuries

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?

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

The other definition refers to holding proper conduct.
This is a very subjective definition, but it mostly refers to keeping the status quo: traditional behaviour, which might not necesarily be moral by the first definition.

*
"The novel (Gulliver's travels) further describes an intra-Lilliputian quarrel over the practice of breaking eggs. Traditionally, Lilliputians broke boiled eggs on the larger end; a few generations ago, an Emperor of Lilliput, the Present Emperor's great-grandfather, had decreed that all eggs be broken on the smaller end after his son cut himself breaking the egg on the larger end. The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to "six rebellions... wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown". The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. The Big-Endians gained favour in Blefuscu."

 

[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.

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?

Oh look... pops has exhausted all argument that he's reduced to parroting back what others say about him.

Earlier, I pointed out how his argument is taking him in circles, so now he tries to transfer is failures onto me.

"Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?" - Faun​

 

[Faun]

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.

Faun, you fucked up again.

No contract is legal if it is entered for criminal purposes.

Good god, your an imbecile.

If entered into for criminal purposes, the contract is not valid and the state is not sanctioning it.

And pops once again destroys his own argument against incestuous marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Faun, you fucked up again.

No contract is legal if it is entered for criminal purposes.

Good god, your an imbecile.

If entered into for criminal purposes, the contract is not valid and the state is not sanctioning it.

And pops once again destroys his own argument against incestuous marriage.

So you then support family marriage.

Good to know

 

[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?

Oh look... pops has exhausted all argument that he's reduced to parroting back what others say about him.

Earlier, I pointed out how his argument is taking him in circles, so now he tries to transfer is failures onto me.

"Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?" - Faun​

I hear projection is a sign of gay OCD, fits your clinical case to a tee.

Seek help

 

[Boss]

What's too complicated is that regardless of how many times you're told the compelling interest is a higher than normal chance of birth defects, you still can't understand it.

Really? Two gay brothers or two lesbian sisters are going to potentially produce a child with birth defects? You've taken Biology, right?

 

[Boss]

The roman empire lasted four centuries

Not after their morality collapsed.

 

[Boss]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

 

[Pop23]

What's too complicated is that regardless of how many times you're told the compelling interest is a higher than normal chance of birth defects, you still can't understand it.

Really? Two gay brothers or two lesbian sisters are going to potentially produce a child with birth defects? You've taken Biology, right?

And incest is against the law, whether one holds a marriage licence or not.

According to the State of Maryland, incest is vaginal penetration. So it appears those opposing same sex sibling marriage have a problem. Especially in two brothers marrying there could be no such illegal activity.

 

[Boss]

And incest is against the law, whether one holds a marriage licence or not.

According to the State of Maryland, incest is vaginal penetration. So it appears those opposing same sex sibling marriage have a problem. Especially in two brothers marrying there could be no such illegal activity.

You are absolutely correct. It is an argument for same-sibling marriage, not about sexual behavior. SCOTUS is clear, this is a fundamental right that cannot be denied. It's not about sexuality it's about equal protection under the law.

 

[Pop23]

And incest is against the law, whether one holds a marriage licence or not.

According to the State of Maryland, incest is vaginal penetration. So it appears those opposing same sex sibling marriage have a problem. Especially in two brothers marrying there could be no such illegal activity.

You are absolutely correct. It is an argument for same-sibling marriage, not about sexual behavior. SCOTUS is clear, this is a fundamental right that cannot be denied. It's not about sexuality it's about equal protection under the law.

I believe it was Justice Scalia that pointed this out in his opposition to Obergfell.

So many misconceptions about what civil marriage is.

Love? Not a requirement.

Sex? Not a requirement

Faithfulness, dignity. Not requirements.

Consent, payment of a fee and a signed document appear to be the only requirements that are provable and non arbitrary.

So why all the opposition to equality

Maybe it's the traditional veiw of marriage?

Or the assumption of icky?