It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

No one was being denied any damn thing here.!

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

Racist, bigot

Wanting them to qualify under a different standard than you.

Shame on you.

Equality will never bow to you haters.

Never

 

[Montrovant]

The basic misunderstand here is the way the USSC determines if a law is constitutional or not.

My opponents in this thread seem to want same sex marriage to be judged legal by use of the Strict Scrutiny test, which is the basis used when a Right is declared Constitutional, but......

When it comes to same sibling marriage the State only has to Judge its constitutionality using the rational basis test.

So here goes:

SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied. The argument was that the State denied same sex the right to marry based on traditional values and their lack of the ability to procreate.

Their winning argument was for the strict application of the law. Since many opposite sex couples can not procreate or do not procreate, they are being denied licenses even though they were essentially the same as those couples.

Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.

Folks, if you WANT marriage judged on the rational basis test, I'm cool with that, but then the authority shifts to either a state vote or state legislators.

From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

 

[Pop23]

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore.

Sucks to be you I guess

Okay- so you were just lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

Your masters must love you

But since we are talking about constitutional civil rights, let's try to stay on track, shall we?

When can the government tell a black male when he can or can't be black?

When can the government tell a female when it is acceptable to vote?

You understand that the restrictions you mentioned earlier fall under the "your rights end where mine begin" philosophy".

 

[Pop23]

The basic misunderstand here is the way the USSC determines if a law is constitutional or not.

My opponents in this thread seem to want same sex marriage to be judged legal by use of the Strict Scrutiny test, which is the basis used when a Right is declared Constitutional, but......

When it comes to same sibling marriage the State only has to Judge its constitutionality using the rational basis test.

So here goes:

SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied. The argument was that the State denied same sex the right to marry based on traditional values and their lack of the ability to procreate.

Their winning argument was for the strict application of the law. Since many opposite sex couples can not procreate or do not procreate, they are being denied licenses even though they were essentially the same as those couples.

Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.

Folks, if you WANT marriage judged on the rational basis test, I'm cool with that, but then the authority shifts to either a state vote or state legislators.

From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

True, but in both intermediate and strict scrutiny, the burdon of proof lies on the shoulders of the Government.

 

[Pop23]

Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore.

It has always been the case that the USSC's rulings require an amendment (or future court ruling) to overturn. Obergefell did nothing to change that. Nor did Obergefell create a new law. It overturned laws the court deemed violated constitutional protection.

No, it's NOT what occurred. Bans on "gay marriage" did not violate the constitution any more than bans on "sibling marriage" or "rape marriage" or "animal marriage" or any number of other things that ARE NOT marriage. SCOTUS literally had to create something that did not exist then established a constitutional right to it. This is above and beyond any authority ever envisioned for the court. Society NEVER agreed to be governed by an oligarchy of people in black robes.

Are you sure you understand what 'literally' means? The court did not create something that did not exist. Same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. Marriage being ruled a fundamental right happened before Obergefell. The court is part of government; society absolutely agreed to that. The power and responsibility of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws is long established, agreed to by society. Nor is the court suddenly some sort of dictatorial overlord.

It's NOT disagreement with their decision. It is disagreement that they should have even heard the case. The court is not there to change laws and right perceived injustices. They are charged with upholding the laws we have established without regard for their personal opinions. What they did here was to legislate a new law from the bench. That is not within their constitutional power... never has been.

It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiments in principle or not... they aren't there to rule based on sentiment. We have a legislative branch which we elect to represent our sentiments and codify those into laws. The SCOTUS is there to uphold those laws... not rewrite them by creating new things and new rights that didn't previously exist. THAT is what I object to, not their intentions or sentiments.

The court is not simply there to uphold the laws, but also to overturn those it determines violates constitutional protections. You disagree that such protections were being violated. Now you are saying the court shouldn't hear cases because, what, ruling in a certain way might have a changing effect on society? If the parties have proper standing and the arguments presented are compelling enough to warrant it, of course the court will hear cases. Again, I see this as your disagreement with the ruling. Had the court ruled the other way and allowed same sex marriage bans to stand, I strongly doubt you would have complained that they shouldn't have heard the case.

A man had exactly the same right to obtain a marriage license with a woman and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the definition of marriage. The Court's "feeling" is not supposed to be the basis of their rulings. The Court may, at a future date, have "feelings" for a brother wanting to marry his sister.... or a woman wanting to marry her rottweiler. Is it alright if they want to willy-nilly change that too, based on sentiments? What about age of consent laws? What if the Court "feels" that a 12-year old should have their constitutional right to legally consent?

To me... this is the difference between an activist court and a court functioning as it was intended, it has nothing to do with my agreement with their ruling. You think the SCOTUS can rule based on their "feelings and sentiments" and I think they should rule based on law and the constitution, and in complete disregard for personal sentiments.

All the times you've complained about minutae being brought up and you're going to complain about my use of the word feel? Fine, the court decided that a man being prevented from marrying another man based on his gender was denying equal access to law; a woman being prevented from marrying another woman based on her gender was denying equal access to law.

You keep bringing up things the court might do as though these things were not just as possible before Obergefell. How did the Obergefell ruling make it possible for the USSC to rule age of consent laws unconstitutional where they could not before the ruling?

There is not a goddamn thing in the Constitution that was upheld with regard to Obergefell. It was a lawless ruling made by an activist court. They established something that previously did not exist (gay marriage) and then they established a constitutional right to it that also did not previously exist. The case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. They had no jurisdiction in this, they certainly had no authority to create new laws and rights out of whole cloth, and they didn't have the authority to impose their personal sentiments on all of us with the power they are entrusted with. But that is what happened.

Once more : same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. No matter how many times you say the court created something completely new, it is untrue. Something like 30 states already had legal same sex marriage when the Obergefell ruling was made, not to mention various other nations also having legal SSM. Your continued descriptions of the court creating some previously nonexistent form of marriage or simply wrong.

The court had no jurisdiction in this? Dismissed based on lack of standing? Based on what, exactly? The parties involved certainly were the ones denied marriage, so they seem to me to have standing; it wasn't someone suing because someone else couldn't get married. The USSC is the highest court of the nation, the last court cases go to when there are questions of constitutionality. How then was this case outside the court's jurisdiction and why should it have been dismissed for lack of standing?

What new law has been created? Do you have the text of this law? I was under the impression the courts ruled that same sex couples must be given access to already existing marriage laws.

EDIT : Changed constitutional to fundamental regarding marriage as a right.

Obergfell created a paradox , a vacuum as it were, without providing reasoning. Kicking the can down the road. It did not need to do so.

 

[Pop23]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.

And today it's same sex siblings.

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.

 

[Syriusly]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

No one was being denied any damn thing here.!

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

 

[Syriusly]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.

And today it's same sex siblings.

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

 

[Syriusly]

Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore.

It has always been the case that the USSC's rulings require an amendment (or future court ruling) to overturn. Obergefell did nothing to change that. Nor did Obergefell create a new law. It overturned laws the court deemed violated constitutional protection.

No, it's NOT what occurred. Bans on "gay marriage" did not violate the constitution any more than bans on "sibling marriage" or "rape marriage" or "animal marriage" or any number of other things that ARE NOT marriage. SCOTUS literally had to create something that did not exist then established a constitutional right to it. This is above and beyond any authority ever envisioned for the court. Society NEVER agreed to be governed by an oligarchy of people in black robes.

Are you sure you understand what 'literally' means? The court did not create something that did not exist. Same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. Marriage being ruled a fundamental right happened before Obergefell. The court is part of government; society absolutely agreed to that. The power and responsibility of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws is long established, agreed to by society. Nor is the court suddenly some sort of dictatorial overlord.

It's NOT disagreement with their decision. It is disagreement that they should have even heard the case. The court is not there to change laws and right perceived injustices. They are charged with upholding the laws we have established without regard for their personal opinions. What they did here was to legislate a new law from the bench. That is not within their constitutional power... never has been.

It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiments in principle or not... they aren't there to rule based on sentiment. We have a legislative branch which we elect to represent our sentiments and codify those into laws. The SCOTUS is there to uphold those laws... not rewrite them by creating new things and new rights that didn't previously exist. THAT is what I object to, not their intentions or sentiments.

The court is not simply there to uphold the laws, but also to overturn those it determines violates constitutional protections. You disagree that such protections were being violated. Now you are saying the court shouldn't hear cases because, what, ruling in a certain way might have a changing effect on society? If the parties have proper standing and the arguments presented are compelling enough to warrant it, of course the court will hear cases. Again, I see this as your disagreement with the ruling. Had the court ruled the other way and allowed same sex marriage bans to stand, I strongly doubt you would have complained that they shouldn't have heard the case.

A man had exactly the same right to obtain a marriage license with a woman and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the definition of marriage. The Court's "feeling" is not supposed to be the basis of their rulings. The Court may, at a future date, have "feelings" for a brother wanting to marry his sister.... or a woman wanting to marry her rottweiler. Is it alright if they want to willy-nilly change that too, based on sentiments? What about age of consent laws? What if the Court "feels" that a 12-year old should have their constitutional right to legally consent?

To me... this is the difference between an activist court and a court functioning as it was intended, it has nothing to do with my agreement with their ruling. You think the SCOTUS can rule based on their "feelings and sentiments" and I think they should rule based on law and the constitution, and in complete disregard for personal sentiments.

All the times you've complained about minutae being brought up and you're going to complain about my use of the word feel? Fine, the court decided that a man being prevented from marrying another man based on his gender was denying equal access to law; a woman being prevented from marrying another woman based on her gender was denying equal access to law.

You keep bringing up things the court might do as though these things were not just as possible before Obergefell. How did the Obergefell ruling make it possible for the USSC to rule age of consent laws unconstitutional where they could not before the ruling?

There is not a goddamn thing in the Constitution that was upheld with regard to Obergefell. It was a lawless ruling made by an activist court. They established something that previously did not exist (gay marriage) and then they established a constitutional right to it that also did not previously exist. The case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. They had no jurisdiction in this, they certainly had no authority to create new laws and rights out of whole cloth, and they didn't have the authority to impose their personal sentiments on all of us with the power they are entrusted with. But that is what happened.

Once more : same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. No matter how many times you say the court created something completely new, it is untrue. Something like 30 states already had legal same sex marriage when the Obergefell ruling was made, not to mention various other nations also having legal SSM. Your continued descriptions of the court creating some previously nonexistent form of marriage or simply wrong.

The court had no jurisdiction in this? Dismissed based on lack of standing? Based on what, exactly? The parties involved certainly were the ones denied marriage, so they seem to me to have standing; it wasn't someone suing because someone else couldn't get married. The USSC is the highest court of the nation, the last court cases go to when there are questions of constitutionality. How then was this case outside the court's jurisdiction and why should it have been dismissed for lack of standing?

What new law has been created? Do you have the text of this law? I was under the impression the courts ruled that same sex couples must be given access to already existing marriage laws.

EDIT : Changed constitutional to fundamental regarding marriage as a right.

Obergfell created a paradox , a vacuum as it were, without providing reasoning. Kicking the can down the road. It did not need to do so.

Says you- citing you.

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.

 

[Syriusly]

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore.

Sucks to be you I guess

Okay- so you were just lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

Your masters must love you

And who do you imagine 'my masters' are?

I find your fantasies rather amusing- since so far every post you have made is nothing more than your flights of fantasy.

 

[Syriusly]

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore.

Sucks to be you I guess

Okay- so you were just lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

Your masters must love you

But since we are talking about constitutional civil rights, let's try to stay on track, shall we?

When can the government tell a black male when he can or can't be black?

When can the government tell a female when it is acceptable to vote?

You understand that the restrictions you mentioned earlier fall under the "your rights end where mine begin" philosophy".

Why are you conversing with yourself?

Will you answer yourself also?

 

[Pop23]

No one was being denied any damn thing here.!

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

When have I every said gay couples could not marry?

So your premis is in error

 

[Pop23]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.

And today it's same sex siblings.

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.

 

[Pop23]

Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore.

It has always been the case that the USSC's rulings require an amendment (or future court ruling) to overturn. Obergefell did nothing to change that. Nor did Obergefell create a new law. It overturned laws the court deemed violated constitutional protection.

No, it's NOT what occurred. Bans on "gay marriage" did not violate the constitution any more than bans on "sibling marriage" or "rape marriage" or "animal marriage" or any number of other things that ARE NOT marriage. SCOTUS literally had to create something that did not exist then established a constitutional right to it. This is above and beyond any authority ever envisioned for the court. Society NEVER agreed to be governed by an oligarchy of people in black robes.

Are you sure you understand what 'literally' means? The court did not create something that did not exist. Same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. Marriage being ruled a fundamental right happened before Obergefell. The court is part of government; society absolutely agreed to that. The power and responsibility of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws is long established, agreed to by society. Nor is the court suddenly some sort of dictatorial overlord.

It's NOT disagreement with their decision. It is disagreement that they should have even heard the case. The court is not there to change laws and right perceived injustices. They are charged with upholding the laws we have established without regard for their personal opinions. What they did here was to legislate a new law from the bench. That is not within their constitutional power... never has been.

It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiments in principle or not... they aren't there to rule based on sentiment. We have a legislative branch which we elect to represent our sentiments and codify those into laws. The SCOTUS is there to uphold those laws... not rewrite them by creating new things and new rights that didn't previously exist. THAT is what I object to, not their intentions or sentiments.

The court is not simply there to uphold the laws, but also to overturn those it determines violates constitutional protections. You disagree that such protections were being violated. Now you are saying the court shouldn't hear cases because, what, ruling in a certain way might have a changing effect on society? If the parties have proper standing and the arguments presented are compelling enough to warrant it, of course the court will hear cases. Again, I see this as your disagreement with the ruling. Had the court ruled the other way and allowed same sex marriage bans to stand, I strongly doubt you would have complained that they shouldn't have heard the case.

A man had exactly the same right to obtain a marriage license with a woman and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the definition of marriage. The Court's "feeling" is not supposed to be the basis of their rulings. The Court may, at a future date, have "feelings" for a brother wanting to marry his sister.... or a woman wanting to marry her rottweiler. Is it alright if they want to willy-nilly change that too, based on sentiments? What about age of consent laws? What if the Court "feels" that a 12-year old should have their constitutional right to legally consent?

To me... this is the difference between an activist court and a court functioning as it was intended, it has nothing to do with my agreement with their ruling. You think the SCOTUS can rule based on their "feelings and sentiments" and I think they should rule based on law and the constitution, and in complete disregard for personal sentiments.

All the times you've complained about minutae being brought up and you're going to complain about my use of the word feel? Fine, the court decided that a man being prevented from marrying another man based on his gender was denying equal access to law; a woman being prevented from marrying another woman based on her gender was denying equal access to law.

You keep bringing up things the court might do as though these things were not just as possible before Obergefell. How did the Obergefell ruling make it possible for the USSC to rule age of consent laws unconstitutional where they could not before the ruling?

There is not a goddamn thing in the Constitution that was upheld with regard to Obergefell. It was a lawless ruling made by an activist court. They established something that previously did not exist (gay marriage) and then they established a constitutional right to it that also did not previously exist. The case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. They had no jurisdiction in this, they certainly had no authority to create new laws and rights out of whole cloth, and they didn't have the authority to impose their personal sentiments on all of us with the power they are entrusted with. But that is what happened.

Once more : same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. No matter how many times you say the court created something completely new, it is untrue. Something like 30 states already had legal same sex marriage when the Obergefell ruling was made, not to mention various other nations also having legal SSM. Your continued descriptions of the court creating some previously nonexistent form of marriage or simply wrong.

The court had no jurisdiction in this? Dismissed based on lack of standing? Based on what, exactly? The parties involved certainly were the ones denied marriage, so they seem to me to have standing; it wasn't someone suing because someone else couldn't get married. The USSC is the highest court of the nation, the last court cases go to when there are questions of constitutionality. How then was this case outside the court's jurisdiction and why should it have been dismissed for lack of standing?

What new law has been created? Do you have the text of this law? I was under the impression the courts ruled that same sex couples must be given access to already existing marriage laws.

EDIT : Changed constitutional to fundamental regarding marriage as a right.

Obergfell created a paradox , a vacuum as it were, without providing reasoning. Kicking the can down the road. It did not need to do so.

Says you- citing you.

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.

So you think rights are a static thing. When did this static position start?

 

[Pop23]

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore.

Sucks to be you I guess

Okay- so you were just lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

Your masters must love you

But since we are talking about constitutional civil rights, let's try to stay on track, shall we?

When can the government tell a black male when he can or can't be black?

When can the government tell a female when it is acceptable to vote?

You understand that the restrictions you mentioned earlier fall under the "your rights end where mine begin" philosophy".

Why are you conversing with yourself?

Will you answer yourself also?

I think you got the drift, you obviously don't like the questions and the answer to your questions contained within it. That's what haters do, they deflect.

 

[Pop23]

No one was being denied any damn thing here.!

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

My position has been clear from the beginning.

I oppose same sex sibling marriage. I oppose any family marriage. But under the constraints of rulings such as Obergfell and Windsor, I can find no sound legal reasoning to prohibit them. Especially when sex is not a qualification to marry.

You?

 

[Faun]

Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.

Back atcha

Of course, what else could you do but have others think for you?

You do realize the post I gave you Kudos for contains the same argument for legal same sex sibling marriage? Right?

You see, this is exactly why I say you're an abject idiot. There's no compelling reason to ban same-sex people from getting married. There are compelling reasons for why siblings can't get married regardless of their gender or sexuality. You've been shown this 100 times and you still don't get it. You never will. Why? Because you're an object idiot.

And I've demonstrated how all those that have been brought forth meet the rational basis test, not the strict scrutiny test.

If you would like we could discuss that further.

But I think you know better and will default back to the "because it's icky" defense.

You've demonstrated nothing other than you're an abject idiot and a troll who fantasizes of nothing except brothers marrying each other.

Meanwhile, you've been shown compelling reasons why states are rightfully denying marriage to immediate family members. Comically, you think if you don't agree with those reasons, they don't exist. But regrettably for your senility, not only do they still exist, but states still rely only on them to maintain bans on marriages between immediate family members.

And "icky" isn't a compelling reason. You only keep throwing that strawman out there because you got yourself seriously bitch-slapped when you tried using that reason to deny same-sex marriage. No one here resorts to that as a compelling reason to deny marriage to immediate family members.

 

[Faun]

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

My position has been clear from the beginning.

I oppose same sex sibling marriage. I oppose any family marriage. But under the constraints of rulings such as Obergfell and Windsor, I can find no sound legal reasoning to prohibit them. Especially when sex is not a qualification to marry.

You?

Obergefell did not cause sex to not be a requirement of marriage.

 

[Faun]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

Imagine how Boss feels then? He's waiting for gay men to shove their penises in his mouth.

 

[Faun]

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

When have I every said gay couples could not marry?

So your premis is in error

You said you're against their right to marry.

Bigot.