It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

 

[Boss]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?

 

[Pop23]

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?

Marriage law is written to accommodate two consenting adult persons not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

There is no 'discrimination' against women – or men, for that matter – when the states follow the Constitution by allowing same-sex couples access to marriage contracts they're eligible to participate in.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law motivated solely by an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015))

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?

Marriage law is written to accommodate two consenting adult persons not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

There is no 'discrimination' against women – or men, for that matter – when the states follow the Constitution by allowing same-sex couples access to marriage contracts they're eligible to participate in.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law motivated solely by an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015))

Except that the application of the arbitrary notion that the two not be too closely related, for no apparent sound legal reason, violates due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

Other than that, I'm cool with the rest since Claytons post would invoke the strict scrutiny test, thus requiring the State to prove ITS compelling interest in denying same sex siblings from partnering in a legal entity that doesn't require sex for membership.

 

[Montrovant]

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender. When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender. What's difficult to understand about that argument?

 

[Pop23]

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender. When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender. What's difficult to understand about that argument?

See Claytons post.

Do you understand that simply because you have a right, not using it is not discrimination, right?

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?

The law isn't determining who is in the relationship. What is a woman prevented from doing in your example, joining that particular relationship?

I fully understand that people are denied the ability to do things in many varied instances. So?

 

[Pop23]

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender. When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender. What's difficult to understand about that argument?

When all have equal, it's not gender its desire.

 

[Montrovant]

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender. When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender. What's difficult to understand about that argument?

See Claytons post.

Do you understand that simply because you have a right, not using it is not discrimination, right?

Again, what are you talking about? Prior to various court decisions and legislation in the past 12 or so years, a man could not marry a man but a woman could. The only thing preventing a man from marrying a man was his gender. He did not have a right to marry a man that he did not use.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?

Marriage law is written to accommodate two consenting adult persons not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

There is no 'discrimination' against women – or men, for that matter – when the states follow the Constitution by allowing same-sex couples access to marriage contracts they're eligible to participate in.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law motivated solely by an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015))

Except that the application of the arbitrary notion that the two not be too closely related, for no apparent sound legal reason, violates due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

Other than that, I'm cool with the rest since Claytons post would invoke the strict scrutiny test, thus requiring the State to prove ITS compelling interest in denying same sex siblings from partnering in a legal entity that doesn't require sex for membership.

Assuming that your contention that preventing immediate family from marrying is arbitrary and without sound legal reason is correct, then sure. That's a big assumption, though.

 

[Montrovant]

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender. When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender. What's difficult to understand about that argument?

When all have equal, it's not gender its desire.

Did a woman have equal access to marrying a man prior to the legalization of same sex marriage?

 

[Pop23]

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender. When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender. What's difficult to understand about that argument?

See Claytons post.

Do you understand that simply because you have a right, not using it is not discrimination, right?

Again, what are you talking about? Prior to various court decisions and legislation in the past 12 or so years, a man could not marry a man but a woman could. The only thing preventing a man from marrying a man was his gender. He did not have a right to marry a man that he did not use.

Are you unaware you won that argument?

We've moved on, argue all you want. That's not the issue.

The argument is, the compelling state interest that the state has in denying same sex siblings.

You deflect away from that as often as you like, that's how you roll.

Wisconsin and several other states seems to think its procreation, yet the burdon of proof is arbitrarily applied. And still more curious is that they don't apply this same standard on partnering in an LLC?

Neither partnership required sex, yet only opposite gender cousins must prove infertility to enter one of these?

That is as discriminatory as it gets.

 

[Pop23]

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?

Marriage law is written to accommodate two consenting adult persons not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

There is no 'discrimination' against women – or men, for that matter – when the states follow the Constitution by allowing same-sex couples access to marriage contracts they're eligible to participate in.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law motivated solely by an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015))

Except that the application of the arbitrary notion that the two not be too closely related, for no apparent sound legal reason, violates due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

Other than that, I'm cool with the rest since Claytons post would invoke the strict scrutiny test, thus requiring the State to prove ITS compelling interest in denying same sex siblings from partnering in a legal entity that doesn't require sex for membership.

Assuming that your contention that preventing immediate family from marrying is arbitrary and without sound legal reason is correct, then sure. That's a big assumption, though.

Demonstatrate how it's not arbitrary without sex being a requirement.

LLC partnerships are not so restricted. No fertility test required and any sibling can partner in them.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

No, it's discriminating against women for two men to marry. Their gender is being excluded from a relationship intended for both genders to join together. We deny people the ability to do things all the time... should I compile a list of all the things we deny people the ability to do?

I beg your pardon???????

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

 

[Boss]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men fucking each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men fucking each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

 

[bodecea]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men fucking each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

So.....let's be clear here. When you think of SSM, your mind immediately defaults to anal sex. What does your mind immediately default to when you think of DSM?

 

[Pop23]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men fucking each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

They're not anything if not imaginative.

Somehow they want to discriminate against anyone with a family member because of possible procreation, but in the same breath, say procreation isn't a requirement to marry?

Such hypocrisy.

Yet ask them to explain why?

Deflect and deflect

They can't handle the exact same arguments they developed as their own marketing scheme.

 

[Pop23]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men fucking each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal.

Houston, we have a problem.