It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

It all fits

You want the legal requirement lowered from strict to intermediate, maybe lower?

Go ahead, go to court and try to Marry your own family member. Tell us how that goes. You fail and the reason will be that I will continue my search for the States compelling interest to deny you and your family marriage partner from getting a license.

No one here other than yourself is proposing marrying any famly members.

You are the one saying you now have a right to marry your sibling- IF you wanted to.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I would like to raise a complaint on the severe abuse of logic Boss just made.

 

[Syriusly]

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.
.

Says you- quoting you- citing you.

Because you ignore or dismiss any opinions that are contrary to your own.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Actually, yes, I was unaware. Your posts are sometimes fairly confusing.

Let's try this again : If Wisconsin allows infertile cousins to marry but not fertile cousins, that indicates that procreation is the major factor in the decision to prevent cousins from marrying, yes? If Wisconsin does NOT allow infertile siblings to marry that seems to indicate that procreation is not the major factor in the decision to prevent siblings from marrying.

A marriage is not an LLC. It is a form of contract with some unique attributes. To compare it with a type of company as though they are exactly the same is disingenuous at best.

Run through those unique attributes, will you.

They are both partnerships that are financially mutual beneficial to the partnership.

Be so kind. But remember, the courts determined traditional values can't be the reasoning.

Proceed

 

[Syriusly]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

Congratulations. It's still not a real marriage.... never will be.

I'm sure she's devastated that her marriage is not a real Boss marriage.

Not just Boss, it's society in general. In every conversation here about this subject, the term "marriage" has to be accompanied by an adjective to distinguish a difference. If there is a difference then it isn't the same. We can fantasize and pretend otherwise, but we all know that gay marriage is not real marriage.

A piece of paper from the state doesn't make it any more real. My state can give me a piece of paper that says I am a unicorn, it does not make me a unicorn.

When the discussion was about 'mixed race' marriages it wasn't because 'mixed race marriages' were different- it was because there were bigots who wanted to deny mixed race couples marriage.

When bigots like Boss talk about 'gay marriage' it is because he wants to deny gays marriage.

There is only marriage- and couples- whether straight or gay- white or black or mixed race- get married.

And the bigots gnash their gnarly teeth in dismay.

 

[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.
.

Says you- quoting you- citing you.

Because you ignore or dismiss any opinions that are contrary to your own.

I love your Says You argument.

Crying?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Another sterling example of Pops just pulling crap out of his ass.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

See, here is part of the problem.

Boss goes around fantasizing how married people have sex.

If he would stop fantasizing about everyone else's sex lives- and focus on his own- he would be happier.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.
.

Says you- quoting you- citing you.

Because you ignore or dismiss any opinions that are contrary to your own.

Him saying it in no way alters the potential validity of 'it'.

You claiming that him saying it, somehow undermines the validity of 'it', is logically invalid... Specifically, it is a variant of the appeal to misleading authority, blending nicely with the appeal to ignorance, wherein you claim that the speaker is unqualified to state 'it', and that a qualified individual would refute 'it'; sadly, you've offered no argument which presents a basis sustaining either implication.

Thus your would-be argument is as pitiful as it is absurd.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

Congratulations. It's still not a real marriage.... never will be.

It is to us and our kids...which is all that matters. Bigots certainly don't. Y'all are relegated to the dust bins of history.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

You blind? Masturbation will do that

Then wny are you calling me a racist- when you opposed mix race couples having the freedom to marry each other.
Me:
You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

Pops:No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

So to recap- you oppose the legal right for gay couples marrying, mixed race couples marrying, siblings marrying and mothers marrying their sons.

I support the legal right for gay couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

So of course you call me a bigot and a racist.

Because I don't opposed mixed race marriages like you do.

What a bigot you are.

No idiot, the law on SSM had been determined. I am arguing based on that suggesfull argument.

YOU want to take credit for the win, but deny that argument to others?

You understand what a bigot is, right?

You think YOU OWN rights, THEY DONT get to share those rights.

Had same sex marriage been legalized prior to interracial, you would be arguing against it.

 

[Syriusly]

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

You blind? Masturbation will do that

Then wny are you calling me a racist- when you opposed mix race couples having the freedom to marry each other.
Me:
You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

Pops:No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

So to recap- you oppose the legal right for gay couples marrying, mixed race couples marrying, siblings marrying and mothers marrying their sons.

I support the legal right for gay couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

So of course you call me a bigot and a racist.

Because I don't opposed mixed race marriages like you do.

What a bigot you are.

No idiot, the law on SSM had been determined. I am arguing based on that suggesfull argument.

YOU want to take credit for the win, but deny that argument to others?

You understand what a bigot is, right?

You think YOU OWN rights, THEY DONT get to share those rights.

Had same sex marriage been legalized prior to interracial, you would be arguing against it.

Once again- you call me a bigot- because I believe in the right of gay couples and mixed race couples to marry- and you do not.

Me:
You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

Pops:No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

So to recap- you oppose the legal right for gay couples marrying, mixed race couples marrying, siblings marrying and mothers marrying their sons.

I support the legal right for gay couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

So of course you call me a bigot and a racist.

Because I don't opposed mixed race marriages like you do.

What a bigot you are.

 

[Boss]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

LOL! So... ROFL! So ... huh... if the SUPREME LEGISLATURE decided that being 'The Obligatory Weird Aunt is all that is necessary to license you as a brain surgeon... you're claiming that this would qualify you to cut into a human skull and operate upon a human brain?

"I'm A REAL BRAIN SURGEON! SEE MY LICENSE!"

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

These people are ABSOLUTELY HELPLESS!

Suffice it to say: Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's so odd that you put a comma after marriage there!

What's weird about a pause? Now, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations, allow.

Here, let me help...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Once again- you call me a bigot- because I believe in the right of gay couples and mixed race couples to marry- and you do not.

ROFLMNAO!

So you believe in the right of White Swans and Gopher Turtles to fly free?

Associating men who marry women of a different skin color to sexual deviants demanding to do something for which they are thoroughly unsuited, is as pitiful as it is absurd.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Actually, yes, I was unaware. Your posts are sometimes fairly confusing.

Let's try this again : If Wisconsin allows infertile cousins to marry but not fertile cousins, that indicates that procreation is the major factor in the decision to prevent cousins from marrying, yes? If Wisconsin does NOT allow infertile siblings to marry that seems to indicate that procreation is not the major factor in the decision to prevent siblings from marrying.

A marriage is not an LLC. It is a form of contract with some unique attributes. To compare it with a type of company as though they are exactly the same is disingenuous at best.

Run through those unique attributes, will you.

They are both partnerships that are financially mutual beneficial to the partnership.

Be so kind. But remember, the courts determined traditional values can't be the reasoning.

Proceed

Marriage creates a family unit. An LLC does not. Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not. A marriage is not a company, an LLC is. Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc.. Joining an LLC does not.

And that's about all the reply to your trolling I'm up for atm.

 

[Montrovant]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

LOL! So... ROFL! So ... huh... if the SUPREME LEGISLATURE decided that being 'The Obligatory Weird Aunt is all that is necessary to license you as a brain surgeon... you're claiming that this would qualify you to cut into a human skull and operate upon a human brain?

"I'm A REAL BRAIN SURGEON! SEE MY LICENSE!"

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

These people are ABSOLUTELY HELPLESS!

Suffice it to say: Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's so odd that you put a comma after marriage there!

What's weird about a pause? Now, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations, allow.

Would you prefer the word unusual? Your use of commas is well outside the norm. Just felt like pointing that out.

 

[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.

Another sterling example of Pops just pulling crap out of his ass.

Another sterling example of Syriously crying.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Actually, yes, I was unaware. Your posts are sometimes fairly confusing.

Let's try this again : If Wisconsin allows infertile cousins to marry but not fertile cousins, that indicates that procreation is the major factor in the decision to prevent cousins from marrying, yes? If Wisconsin does NOT allow infertile siblings to marry that seems to indicate that procreation is not the major factor in the decision to prevent siblings from marrying.

A marriage is not an LLC. It is a form of contract with some unique attributes. To compare it with a type of company as though they are exactly the same is disingenuous at best.

Run through those unique attributes, will you.

They are both partnerships that are financially mutual beneficial to the partnership.

Be so kind. But remember, the courts determined traditional values can't be the reasoning.

Proceed

Marriage creates a family unit. An LLC does not. Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not. A marriage is not a company, an LLC is. Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc.. Joining an LLC does not.

And that's about all the reply to your trolling I'm up for atm.

They both create partnerships. State the compelling state interest that the state has in establishing family units. There is one, but you deny it as a sound legal reason. And you realize the Government is NOT compelled to give tax benefits. They can end at any time the government wants, and ending those would be constitutional.

Power of attorney can be established by anyone, married or not, so yet another fail.

Yes I know one created a corporation (duh) but you fail to explain why marriage is the ONLY legal partnership that limits the number and familial status of its members. Instead you rely on traditional values? How hypocritical of you

It seems you are relying solely on tradition.

How'd that work for SSM opponents last time dummy?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage creates a family unit. An LLC does not.

Marriage is the Joining of a Man and a Woman. Therefore Marriage creates a Family.

A male joining with another male or a female joining with another female, does not.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Actually, yes, I was unaware. Your posts are sometimes fairly confusing.

Let's try this again : If Wisconsin allows infertile cousins to marry but not fertile cousins, that indicates that procreation is the major factor in the decision to prevent cousins from marrying, yes? If Wisconsin does NOT allow infertile siblings to marry that seems to indicate that procreation is not the major factor in the decision to prevent siblings from marrying.

A marriage is not an LLC. It is a form of contract with some unique attributes. To compare it with a type of company as though they are exactly the same is disingenuous at best.

Run through those unique attributes, will you.

They are both partnerships that are financially mutual beneficial to the partnership.

Be so kind. But remember, the courts determined traditional values can't be the reasoning.

Proceed

Marriage creates a family unit. An LLC does not. Marriage extends certain tax benefits that an LLC does not. A marriage is not a company, an LLC is. Marriage extends certain rights regarding inheritance, medical decisions, etc.. Joining an LLC does not.

And that's about all the reply to your trolling I'm up for atm.

They both create partnerships. State the compelling state interest that the state has in establishing family units. There is one, but you deny it as a sound legal reason. And you realize the Government is NOT compelled to give tax benefits. They can end at any time the government wants, and ending those would be constitutional.

Power of attorney can be established by anyone, married or not, so yet another fail.

Yes I know one created a corporation (duh) but you fail to explain why marriage is the ONLY legal partnership that limits the number and familial status of its members. Instead you rely on traditional values? How hypocritical of you

It seems you are relying solely on tradition.

How'd that work for SSM opponents last time dummy?

I don't think an LLC is a corporation, although it can be taxed like one.

You are the one comparing a marriage to an LLC. Feel free to point out how the differences between them are not actually differences.