Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[paddymurphy]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

That's not legal rational.

Interracial marriage included the "limiting" factor of being of separate gender. It is no more

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

So, no blow jobs for keys? Mrs Keys does not polish the knob?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If nothing else these posts have shown me that the libtards do agree that I should be allowed to own an AK, full auto. hell, I can even legally own a tank or a nuclear device. the 2nd amendment gives me that right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, you dumb fuck, a fundamental right does not preclude conditions.

Actually... it quite literally DOES.

Your problem is that you are not taking into account the intrinsic RESPONSIBILITY which come with FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

For instance, my right to practice my religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another's means to practice their own religion freely... just as my right to speak freely comes with the responsibility to not injure the means of another to exercise their own rights... and so on.

The Right is UNCONDITIONAL... within the scope of THE RIGHT, wherein the responsibility rests... and it is the bearing OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY which sustains my RIGHT... .

Now on to the obligatory 'Shouting Fire' in a crowded theater: there is no more a right to SHOUT FIRE in a crowded Theater, than there is TO START A FIRE IN THE CROWDED THEATER...

Now, why don't you inform the reader why that is... (You should know given your profession and all...)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, you dumb fuck, a fundamental right does not preclude conditions.

Actually... it quite literally DOES.

Your problem is that you are not taking into account the intrinsic RESPONSIBILITY which comes with FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

For instance, my right to practice my religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another's means to practice their own religion freely... just as my right to speak freely comes with the responsibility to not injure the means of another to exercise their own rights... and so on.

The Right is UNCONDITIONAL... within the scope of THE RIGHT, wherein the responsibility rests... and it is the bearing OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY which sustains my RIGHT... .

Now on to the obligatory 'Shouting Fire' in a crowded theater: there is no more a right to SHOUT FIRE in a crowded Theater, than there is TO START A FIRE IN THE CROWDED THEATER...

Now, why don't you inform the reader why that is... (You should know given your profession and all...)

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

There's nothing in my Religion which requires me to preclude you from living their life. To the contrary, my religion sets to me the duty to defend your life as I defend my own.

Would you like to offer an example of my having advocated for something which would preclude another from doing something to which they are otherwise rightly entitled?

I'll happily consider whatever it is ya have to offer.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, they don't SAY it; but it is clear from their words about homosexuals and their demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights how they really feel.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

Only a fool would agree that there is a fundamental RIGHT to marriage. As that would require that Marriage be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You see, by rendering marriage meaningless... that strips the legitimate authority intrinsic to marriage from marriage... thus the children conceived through marriage are not the responsibility of the parents, thus requiring the NEED to SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE LAW... thus providing Children the means to sexual consent... thus providing the means of the PROTECTED DEGENERATE CLASS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

And Reader... THEY ARE ALMOST THERE!

Just ONE MORE STEP and that is only going to require one more vote at the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

You really need to do something about the voices in your head telling you this psychotic, moronic horseshit. Please do get help. There is medication these days.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

There's nothing in my Religion which requires me to preclude you from living their life. To the contrary, my religion sets to me the duty to defend your life as I defend my own.

Would you like to offer an example of my having advocated for something which would preclude another from doing something to which they are otherwise rightly entitled?

I'll happily consider whatever it is ya have to offer.

Are you saying that you have not advocated against the right's of gays to be married and have children?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

Only a fool would agree that there is a fundamental RIGHT to marriage. As that would require that Marriage be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You see, by rendering marriage meaningless... that strips the legitimate authority intrinsic to marriage from marriage... thus the children conceived through marriage are not the responsibility of the parents, thus requiring the NEED to SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE LAW... thus providing Children the means to sexual consent... thus providing the means of the PROTECTED DEGENERATE CLASS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

And Reader... THEY ARE ALMOST THERE!

Just ONE MORE STEP and that is only going to require one more vote at the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

You really need to do something about the voices in your head telling you this psychotic, moronic horseshit. Please do get help. There is medication these days.

OH!

Ok... Just so I understand.

You read the argument. The result was you felt convicted by the argument, and a strong sense to avoid accountability by the truth in the argument, lead you to say Something... ANYTHING that expressed your discontent... and despite your best efforts, you could not find a single cogent point to offer.

So instead, you offered your formal concession?

Fair enough...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Syriusly]

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage
There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

 

[Pop23]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

That's not legal rational.

Interracial marriage included the "limiting" factor of being of separate gender. It is no more

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

It becomes arbitrary unless there is a reason. You named a reason. That no longer exists as per the recent ruling.

 

[Pop23]

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

 

[Pop23]

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

You did have a reason to ask, or were you simply being argumentative?

 

[Syriusly]

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

You did have a reason to ask, or were you simply being argumentative?

Oh I had a reason to ask.

I am awaiting for your explanation.

 

[Pop23]

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

You did have a reason to ask, or were you simply being argumentative?

Oh I had a reason to ask.

I am awaiting for your explanation.

Oh I see, I answer your question then you get even more before grading the paper?

Who's driving this bus????

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

There's nothing in my Religion which requires me to preclude you from living their life. To the contrary, my religion sets to me the duty to defend your life as I defend my own.

Would you like to offer an example of my having advocated for something which would preclude another from doing something to which they are otherwise rightly entitled?

I'll happily consider whatever it is ya have to offer.

Are you saying that you have not advocated against the right's of gays to be married and have children?

There is no potential for a right wherein the exercise of such injures another.

Sexual Deviancy; the processes of the disordered mind which accept sex with a person of the same gender or an animal, is a LIE... .

Deceit is axiomatically injurious to the individual advancing it and the individual being mislead by it.

There is therefore: NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT.

You see scamp... for a right to exist, that right must first be recognized in EVERY INDIVIDUAL... You claim a right, you must recognize that same right in me. Understand?

Now where you claim a right to deceive another, you must recognize the right in another to deceive you. And in doing so you injure yourself and the other.

PRESTO... there's no right to injure another.

This is how we can be SO SURE... that you don't have a right to murder the child you conceived through your willful behavior... which is how we can be so sure that you have no right to engage in such behavior UNTIL you're in a position to bear the responsibilities central to and unavoidably intrinsic IN... that behavior.

Feel better?

 

[Coyote]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

That's not legal rational.

Interracial marriage included the "limiting" factor of being of separate gender. It is no more

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage
There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

It becomes arbitrary unless there is a reason. You named a reason. That no longer exists as per the recent ruling.

A foolish ruling, does not disable natural law.

OH THAT IT COULD... right?

But... it don't. So I tend to ignore such nonsense. It really helps to move the conversation along.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage
There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

 

[danielpalos]

Polygamy can solve the problem of there not being enough nice guys to go around, for women.

 

[Coyote]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

Polygamy predated monogomy in most societies...nothing "devient" about it at all. Sheesh...review your Bible will you?