It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

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.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Who said it did?

You on the right thread?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Where?

 

[Montrovant]

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?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

More specifically- the argument that procreation was a rational clearly was not the reason why Wisconsin and other states prohibited siblings from marrying- fertile or infertile- while having special provisions for First Cousins- which allowed them to marry- but only if they were infertile.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

As you note- 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]

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.

When have you ever actually answered any question?

 

[Faun]

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.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

 

[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.

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

Deflection again.

My post points out that your 'arguments' are you citing yourself- quoting yourself

And:

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.

 

[Pop23]

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?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

You understand equal protection, Right? The 14th amendment and such?

Was this the societal safe guard that Syriously's Judge Crabb spoke of?

By Joe, I think it was.

Pity that safeguard has been lessened

 

[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?

Deflection again.

My post points out that your 'arguments' are you citing yourself- quoting yourself

And:

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.

No deflection indeed. Due to your limited ability to comprehend simple concepts, I needed to understand the context.

And, indeed it is a paradox, or your a bigot, Which?

 

[Pop23]

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.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

 

[Pop23]

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.

When have you ever actually answered any question?

10 x more than your side combined.

Can't you count?

 

[Pop23]

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.

As you note- 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?

So I'm the ultimate arbiter?

Cool, I also have the winning powerball numbers.

Nope, not telling you!

 

[Montrovant]

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?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

You understand equal protection, Right? The 14th amendment and such?

Was this the societal safe guard that Syriously's Judge Crabb spoke of?

By Joe, I think it was.

Pity that safeguard has been lessened

That wasn't actually an answer to the question. If you are trying to say that procreation is the answer and the reason infertile siblings were prevented from marrying is in order to have them treated equally to fertile siblings, why then are there laws preventing fertile cousins from marrying but allowing infertile ones to do so, as linked to by Syriusly?

 

[Pop23]

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?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

You understand equal protection, Right? The 14th amendment and such?

Was this the societal safe guard that Syriously's Judge Crabb spoke of?

By Joe, I think it was.

Pity that safeguard has been lessened

That wasn't actually an answer to the question. If you are trying to say that procreation is the answer and the reason infertile siblings were prevented from marrying is in order to have them treated equally to fertile siblings, why then are there laws preventing fertile cousins from marrying but allowing infertile ones to do so, as linked to by Syriusly?

The State HAD the right to regulate how marriage was administrated I guess. I would also guess that they were borderline on if those couples were "too closely related". Oh, and no one can be more "too closely related" than siblings (other than the actual parent, cuz damn, they are intensely closely related).

Clear enough for the third time?

Now, have you found any reason why in Wisconsin, opposite sex cousins have to PROVE infertility to marry, but same sex cousins would not?

Or do you think that same sex cousins shouldn't have too? Seems incredibly stupid to make such an outlandish request. Then shouldn't the same rules apply to both couples?

Just another of the many paradoxes that Obergfell created.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

 

[Faun]

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.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

 

[Pop23]

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.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

 

[Montrovant]

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?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

You understand equal protection, Right? The 14th amendment and such?

Was this the societal safe guard that Syriously's Judge Crabb spoke of?

By Joe, I think it was.

Pity that safeguard has been lessened

That wasn't actually an answer to the question. If you are trying to say that procreation is the answer and the reason infertile siblings were prevented from marrying is in order to have them treated equally to fertile siblings, why then are there laws preventing fertile cousins from marrying but allowing infertile ones to do so, as linked to by Syriusly?

The State HAD the right to regulate how marriage was administrated I guess. I would also guess that they were borderline on if those couples were "too closely related". Oh, and no one can be more "too closely related" than siblings (other than the actual parent, cuz damn, they are intensely closely related).

Clear enough for the third time?

Now, have you found any reason why in Wisconsin, opposite sex cousins have to PROVE infertility to marry, but same sex cousins would not?

Or do you think that same sex cousins shouldn't have too? Seems incredibly stupid to make such an outlandish request. Then shouldn't the same rules apply to both couples?

Just another of the many paradoxes that Obergfell created.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

I do not see any reason same sex cousins should have to prove anything regarding fertility in Wisconsin to marry. In that instance procreation is clearly the greatest factor in the decision whether or not to allow marriage.

Should the same rules apply to both couples? I assume by both couples you mean opposite sex and same sex cousins. Yes, the same rules apply. Only couples who cannot have children together can marry if they are first cousins.

 

[Faun]

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.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

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

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.