Just 5 days later: Man Applies for Marriage License to Have Two Wives

[ChrisL]

It's funny how you keep having to fall back on family members marrying. That is not what homosexual marriage is.

It's funny how you keep not wanting to talk about family members marrying. It's funny how you keep trying to disenfranchise Incest-Americans from their newly created loophole in last Friday's Ruling.

You see, when the Court created a new class of people to add to the Constitution, based on "sexually deviant behaviors", they didn't get to pick favorites. Ironically, the same passages they incorrectly cited to justify their amending the Constitution also protect any other deviant sexual behaviors, including Polygamy-Americans.

Oh what a fucking mess King Kennedy brought on his own Court. The topic of incorrect premise "behaviors are the same as static race" is going to be explored this time around in a little more depth.

Like I said before, if one set of behaviors repugnant to the majority can escape the majority's regulation, where does the Court next draw the line? The answer is, IT CAN'T. Once you grant a set of behaviors the majority finds offensive "protection from the majority" you've just set into motion a set of legal conditions whereby the entire American legal system will begin to unravel.

I'm shocked Congressional republicans haven't jumped on this and found the Ruling unconstitutional based on the Court attempting to amend the Constitution without permission of the legislative branch. I mean, they're trying to win people's loyalties in this upcoming election. If they do nothing, they're going to look like part of the problem. I get what they're thinking "if we let this travesty go on, we'll rake in more votes". But their miscalculation is that if they let it go on, it will cost them votes. The people in the middle shift around and aren't fastly loyal. If they sense weakness and passivity in the GOP on this issue, it's not going to "make them mad enough to vote GOP".

The solution is to act aggressively now and then remind voters as October 2016 approaches that if they get another hard left crew in power, they're going to be right back in deviant sex-dictatorship land. Then middle voters will remember. Most of the time people forget easily. That's the old adage. But not on this issue. It's a powerful one and one that is branded into people's minds.

Sorry, in my mind, incest and gay marriage are apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, incest usually begins when a person is still a child, and they are groomed into believing it is normal. It is a terrible CRIME. Two gay men or women who are NOT related do not have anything to do with incest, and there is no valid reason to deny two taxpaying Americans the privilege of marriage when there is no abuse or coercion involved.

 

[ChrisL]

Why not? The fact is, most incestual relations are the result of child abuse. FACT.

Ah but you're deflecting. Since we are discussing marriage we are not talking about children.

Educate yourself please.

Sibling Sexual Abuse Uncovering the Secret

Why are you posting a link to opposite sex siblings when the question was about same sex hetro siblings?

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

I think we both agree that two siblings of opposing genders is a very, very bad idea. Their offspring would create defective bloodlines. Too much of that created inbreeding and that's definitely not good for society.

Yet that argument does not hold water for same sex siblings. They cannot procreate, so the legal reasoning to deny them is absurd.

If you cannot argue a legal reason to deny the same sex couple, which there is none, yet deny the opposite sex siblings, you discriminate based on gender.

If you deny the same sex couple based on the opposite sex coupled ability to procreate, you are making the ability to procreate by others the basis to deny access on those that can't, and by doing so, make procreation a factor in marriage.

Nope, you are wrong. Everything is not black and white. There are gray areas.

 

[MarcATL]

State cant define marriage.

He'll win haha.

And why shouldn't he?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

Why don't you people be honest and tell us the REAL reason why you are against gay marriage? Hmm? A little honesty around here would be nice for a change. I don't know how some of you can lay your heads on your pillows and sleep at night.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why don't you people be honest and tell us the REAL reason why you are against gay marriage? Hmm? A little honesty around here would be nice for a change. I don't know how some of you can lay your heads on your pillows and sleep at night.

Letting the people of a state define marriage the way they see fit is dishonest?

 

[ChrisL]

Why don't you people be honest and tell us the REAL reason why you are against gay marriage? Hmm? A little honesty around here would be nice for a change. I don't know how some of you can lay your heads on your pillows and sleep at night.

Letting the people of a state define marriage the way they see fit is dishonest?

Why don't you answer the question?

 

[Pop23]

What is the arguments then?

Interesting isn't it. Take procreation out of the picture and you can't deny a license to anyone.

Why not? The fact is, most incestual relations are the result of child abuse. FACT.

Ah but you're deflecting. Since we are discussing marriage we are not talking about children.

Educate yourself please.

Sibling Sexual Abuse Uncovering the Secret

Why are you posting a link to opposite sex siblings when the question was about same sex hetro siblings?

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

 

[ChrisL]

Why not? The fact is, most incestual relations are the result of child abuse. FACT.

Ah but you're deflecting. Since we are discussing marriage we are not talking about children.

Educate yourself please.

Sibling Sexual Abuse Uncovering the Secret

Why are you posting a link to opposite sex siblings when the question was about same sex hetro siblings?

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

Tell me why you are against gay marriage.

 

[ChrisL]

Why not? The fact is, most incestual relations are the result of child abuse. FACT.

Ah but you're deflecting. Since we are discussing marriage we are not talking about children.

Educate yourself please.

Sibling Sexual Abuse Uncovering the Secret

Why are you posting a link to opposite sex siblings when the question was about same sex hetro siblings?

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

Are you trying to convince me that you are against gay marriage because you are afraid brothers are going to marry one another? Really?

 

[Pop23]

It's funny how you keep having to fall back on family members marrying. That is not what homosexual marriage is.

It's funny how you keep not wanting to talk about family members marrying. It's funny how you keep trying to disenfranchise Incest-Americans from their newly created loophole in last Friday's Ruling.

You see, when the Court created a new class of people to add to the Constitution, based on "sexually deviant behaviors", they didn't get to pick favorites. Ironically, the same passages they incorrectly cited to justify their amending the Constitution also protect any other deviant sexual behaviors, including Polygamy-Americans.

Oh what a fucking mess King Kennedy brought on his own Court. The topic of incorrect premise "behaviors are the same as static race" is going to be explored this time around in a little more depth.

Like I said before, if one set of behaviors repugnant to the majority can escape the majority's regulation, where does the Court next draw the line? The answer is, IT CAN'T. Once you grant a set of behaviors the majority finds offensive "protection from the majority" you've just set into motion a set of legal conditions whereby the entire American legal system will begin to unravel.

I'm shocked Congressional republicans haven't jumped on this and found the Ruling unconstitutional based on the Court attempting to amend the Constitution without permission of the legislative branch. I mean, they're trying to win people's loyalties in this upcoming election. If they do nothing, they're going to look like part of the problem. I get what they're thinking "if we let this travesty go on, we'll rake in more votes". But their miscalculation is that if they let it go on, it will cost them votes. The people in the middle shift around and aren't fastly loyal. If they sense weakness and passivity in the GOP on this issue, it's not going to "make them mad enough to vote GOP".

The solution is to act aggressively now and then remind voters as October 2016 approaches that if they get another hard left crew in power, they're going to be right back in deviant sex-dictatorship land. Then middle voters will remember. Most of the time people forget easily. That's the old adage. But not on this issue. It's a powerful one and one that is branded into people's minds.

Sorry, in my mind, incest and gay marriage are apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, incest usually begins when a person is still a child, and they are groomed into believing it is normal. It is a terrible CRIME. Two gay men or women who are NOT related do not have anything to do with incest, and there is no valid reason to deny two taxpaying Americans the privilege of marriage when there is no abuse or coercion involved.

If the law created a separate GAY MARRIAGE, you had a point, still weak, but there could be legal arguments to keep the "not to closely related" qualifier in place.

The problem is that the law lifted a ban on all SAME SEX marriage.

Poorly thought out, it opens the door

 

[ChrisL]

It's funny how you keep having to fall back on family members marrying. That is not what homosexual marriage is.

It's funny how you keep not wanting to talk about family members marrying. It's funny how you keep trying to disenfranchise Incest-Americans from their newly created loophole in last Friday's Ruling.

You see, when the Court created a new class of people to add to the Constitution, based on "sexually deviant behaviors", they didn't get to pick favorites. Ironically, the same passages they incorrectly cited to justify their amending the Constitution also protect any other deviant sexual behaviors, including Polygamy-Americans.

Oh what a fucking mess King Kennedy brought on his own Court. The topic of incorrect premise "behaviors are the same as static race" is going to be explored this time around in a little more depth.

Like I said before, if one set of behaviors repugnant to the majority can escape the majority's regulation, where does the Court next draw the line? The answer is, IT CAN'T. Once you grant a set of behaviors the majority finds offensive "protection from the majority" you've just set into motion a set of legal conditions whereby the entire American legal system will begin to unravel.

I'm shocked Congressional republicans haven't jumped on this and found the Ruling unconstitutional based on the Court attempting to amend the Constitution without permission of the legislative branch. I mean, they're trying to win people's loyalties in this upcoming election. If they do nothing, they're going to look like part of the problem. I get what they're thinking "if we let this travesty go on, we'll rake in more votes". But their miscalculation is that if they let it go on, it will cost them votes. The people in the middle shift around and aren't fastly loyal. If they sense weakness and passivity in the GOP on this issue, it's not going to "make them mad enough to vote GOP".

The solution is to act aggressively now and then remind voters as October 2016 approaches that if they get another hard left crew in power, they're going to be right back in deviant sex-dictatorship land. Then middle voters will remember. Most of the time people forget easily. That's the old adage. But not on this issue. It's a powerful one and one that is branded into people's minds.

Sorry, in my mind, incest and gay marriage are apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, incest usually begins when a person is still a child, and they are groomed into believing it is normal. It is a terrible CRIME. Two gay men or women who are NOT related do not have anything to do with incest, and there is no valid reason to deny two taxpaying Americans the privilege of marriage when there is no abuse or coercion involved.

If the law created a separate GAY MARRIAGE, you had a point, still weak, but there could be legal arguments to keep the "not to closely related" qualifier in place.

The problem is that the law lifted a ban on all SAME SEX marriage.

Poorly thought out, it opens the door

Exactly, but incestual relations are STILL illegal. Correct?

 

[Pop23]

Ah but you're deflecting. Since we are discussing marriage we are not talking about children.

Educate yourself please.

Sibling Sexual Abuse Uncovering the Secret

Why are you posting a link to opposite sex siblings when the question was about same sex hetro siblings?

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

Are you trying to convince me that you are against gay marriage because you are afraid brothers are going to marry one another? Really?

I posted a link earlier of two gay lovers who found out they were actually brothers. It happens.

But actually, why would you deny the financial benefits of marriage to two heterosexual brothers?

The fairy tale is over, marriage is simply a contract bestowing financial benefits between the partners.

There is no qualification that the partners are to be in love or have a sexual relationship.

There is simply no reason to deny those financial rights to the couples I've described all along.

 

[ChrisL]

Educate yourself please.

Sibling Sexual Abuse Uncovering the Secret

Why are you posting a link to opposite sex siblings when the question was about same sex hetro siblings?

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

Are you trying to convince me that you are against gay marriage because you are afraid brothers are going to marry one another? Really?

I posted a link earlier of two gay lovers who found out they were actually brothers. It happens.

But actually, why would you deny the financial benefits of marriage to two heterosexual brothers?

The fairy tale is over, marriage is simply a contract bestowing financial benefits between the partners.

There is no qualification that the partners are to be in love or have a sexual relationship.

There is simply no reason to deny those financial rights to the couples I've described all along.

Incest between close relations is illegal. Your argument is a huge failure. Now, tell me why you object to two gay people getting married please. I'm not going to play this silly game anymore. I want answers!

 

[HenryBHough]

Exactly, but incestual relations are STILL illegal. Correct?

A temporary condition.

Be assured The Supreme Court will be asked to fix that before you're old and gray.

 

[Pop23]

It's funny how you keep having to fall back on family members marrying. That is not what homosexual marriage is.

It's funny how you keep not wanting to talk about family members marrying. It's funny how you keep trying to disenfranchise Incest-Americans from their newly created loophole in last Friday's Ruling.

You see, when the Court created a new class of people to add to the Constitution, based on "sexually deviant behaviors", they didn't get to pick favorites. Ironically, the same passages they incorrectly cited to justify their amending the Constitution also protect any other deviant sexual behaviors, including Polygamy-Americans.

Oh what a fucking mess King Kennedy brought on his own Court. The topic of incorrect premise "behaviors are the same as static race" is going to be explored this time around in a little more depth.

Like I said before, if one set of behaviors repugnant to the majority can escape the majority's regulation, where does the Court next draw the line? The answer is, IT CAN'T. Once you grant a set of behaviors the majority finds offensive "protection from the majority" you've just set into motion a set of legal conditions whereby the entire American legal system will begin to unravel.

I'm shocked Congressional republicans haven't jumped on this and found the Ruling unconstitutional based on the Court attempting to amend the Constitution without permission of the legislative branch. I mean, they're trying to win people's loyalties in this upcoming election. If they do nothing, they're going to look like part of the problem. I get what they're thinking "if we let this travesty go on, we'll rake in more votes". But their miscalculation is that if they let it go on, it will cost them votes. The people in the middle shift around and aren't fastly loyal. If they sense weakness and passivity in the GOP on this issue, it's not going to "make them mad enough to vote GOP".

The solution is to act aggressively now and then remind voters as October 2016 approaches that if they get another hard left crew in power, they're going to be right back in deviant sex-dictatorship land. Then middle voters will remember. Most of the time people forget easily. That's the old adage. But not on this issue. It's a powerful one and one that is branded into people's minds.

Sorry, in my mind, incest and gay marriage are apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, incest usually begins when a person is still a child, and they are groomed into believing it is normal. It is a terrible CRIME. Two gay men or women who are NOT related do not have anything to do with incest, and there is no valid reason to deny two taxpaying Americans the privilege of marriage when there is no abuse or coercion involved.

If the law created a separate GAY MARRIAGE, you had a point, still weak, but there could be legal arguments to keep the "not to closely related" qualifier in place.

The problem is that the law lifted a ban on all SAME SEX marriage.

Poorly thought out, it opens the door

Exactly, but incestual relations are STILL illegal. Correct?

Yes, and the basis for that is based solely on TRADITION and the need to keep bloodlines pure.

1. You cannot discriminate against one and not the other when the only factor to do so is procreation. That argument died in the SAME SEX marriage debate. Remember it was duscriminatory, bigoted to deny because one couple could procreate and the other could not.

2. Tradition was not a legal basis for denial of the license.

Now, to deny license, you must argue that procreation does indeed matter as does tradition.

I didn't create the paradox, it's been left with us to make sense of it.

 

[ChrisL]

Exactly, but incestual relations are STILL illegal. Correct?

A temporary condition.

Be assured The Supreme Court will be asked to fix that before you're old and gray.

Doubtful.

 

[Pop23]

Why are you posting a link to opposite sex siblings when the question was about same sex hetro siblings?

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

Are you trying to convince me that you are against gay marriage because you are afraid brothers are going to marry one another? Really?

I posted a link earlier of two gay lovers who found out they were actually brothers. It happens.

But actually, why would you deny the financial benefits of marriage to two heterosexual brothers?

The fairy tale is over, marriage is simply a contract bestowing financial benefits between the partners.

There is no qualification that the partners are to be in love or have a sexual relationship.

There is simply no reason to deny those financial rights to the couples I've described all along.

Incest between close relations is illegal. Your argument is a huge failure. Now, tell me why you object to two gay people getting married please. I'm not going to play this silly game anymore. I want answers!

I object because the INCLUSSION creates a legal paradox without answers that make any sense.

 

[ChrisL]

It's funny how you keep having to fall back on family members marrying. That is not what homosexual marriage is.

It's funny how you keep not wanting to talk about family members marrying. It's funny how you keep trying to disenfranchise Incest-Americans from their newly created loophole in last Friday's Ruling.

You see, when the Court created a new class of people to add to the Constitution, based on "sexually deviant behaviors", they didn't get to pick favorites. Ironically, the same passages they incorrectly cited to justify their amending the Constitution also protect any other deviant sexual behaviors, including Polygamy-Americans.

Oh what a fucking mess King Kennedy brought on his own Court. The topic of incorrect premise "behaviors are the same as static race" is going to be explored this time around in a little more depth.

Like I said before, if one set of behaviors repugnant to the majority can escape the majority's regulation, where does the Court next draw the line? The answer is, IT CAN'T. Once you grant a set of behaviors the majority finds offensive "protection from the majority" you've just set into motion a set of legal conditions whereby the entire American legal system will begin to unravel.

I'm shocked Congressional republicans haven't jumped on this and found the Ruling unconstitutional based on the Court attempting to amend the Constitution without permission of the legislative branch. I mean, they're trying to win people's loyalties in this upcoming election. If they do nothing, they're going to look like part of the problem. I get what they're thinking "if we let this travesty go on, we'll rake in more votes". But their miscalculation is that if they let it go on, it will cost them votes. The people in the middle shift around and aren't fastly loyal. If they sense weakness and passivity in the GOP on this issue, it's not going to "make them mad enough to vote GOP".

The solution is to act aggressively now and then remind voters as October 2016 approaches that if they get another hard left crew in power, they're going to be right back in deviant sex-dictatorship land. Then middle voters will remember. Most of the time people forget easily. That's the old adage. But not on this issue. It's a powerful one and one that is branded into people's minds.

Sorry, in my mind, incest and gay marriage are apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, incest usually begins when a person is still a child, and they are groomed into believing it is normal. It is a terrible CRIME. Two gay men or women who are NOT related do not have anything to do with incest, and there is no valid reason to deny two taxpaying Americans the privilege of marriage when there is no abuse or coercion involved.

If the law created a separate GAY MARRIAGE, you had a point, still weak, but there could be legal arguments to keep the "not to closely related" qualifier in place.

The problem is that the law lifted a ban on all SAME SEX marriage.

Poorly thought out, it opens the door

Exactly, but incestual relations are STILL illegal. Correct?

Yes, and the basis for that is based solely on TRADITION and the need to keep bloodlines pure.

1. You cannot discriminate against one and not the other when the only factor to do so is procreation. That argument died in the SAME SEX marriage debate. Remember it was duscriminatory, bigoted to deny because one couple could procreate and the other could not.

2. Tradition was not a legal basis for denial of the license.

Now, to deny license, you must argue that procreation does indeed matter as does tradition.

I didn't create the paradox, it's been left with us to make sense of it.

No. I am not playing your game. You tell me why you are against two same sex people, who are not related, being married please.

 

[ChrisL]

Since you want marriage to be between a man and a woman only, then I guess two opposite sex siblings marrying is okay? That is basically the same as what you are saying to me. Lol.

You're confused again. Marriage WAS defined between a man and a woman, not to closely related.

That definition was changed.

The "not too closely related" was required to keep bloodlines pure.

Same sex siblings cannot create defective bloodlines, so what is the legal basis to deny them a license?

Are you trying to convince me that you are against gay marriage because you are afraid brothers are going to marry one another? Really?

I posted a link earlier of two gay lovers who found out they were actually brothers. It happens.

But actually, why would you deny the financial benefits of marriage to two heterosexual brothers?

The fairy tale is over, marriage is simply a contract bestowing financial benefits between the partners.

There is no qualification that the partners are to be in love or have a sexual relationship.

There is simply no reason to deny those financial rights to the couples I've described all along.

Incest between close relations is illegal. Your argument is a huge failure. Now, tell me why you object to two gay people getting married please. I'm not going to play this silly game anymore. I want answers!

I object because the INCLUSSION creates a legal paradox without answers that make any sense.

Since incest does not equal gays being married, then you are wrong. Those are two completely different sets of circumstances.

 

[HenryBHough]

A temporary condition.

Be assured The Supreme Court will be asked to fix that before you're old and gray.

Doubtful.

Jeez, you look so much younger!