Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

The Supreme Court usually doesn't comment on anything unless it is brought before them. I can't figure out why you're so bigoted against it. You claim you're not but anyone can see you really are.

How then can the Supreme Court authorize polygamy.....by never mentioning in a case that has nothing to do with polygamy?

By your logic, Madison v. Marbury authorized polygamy. As it had nothing to do with polygamy nor ever mentioned it.

How did they authorize gay and lesbian marriages? A 5 to 4 vote. Besides, the Supreme Court cannot authorize anything.

Well then why did you ask- the Supreme Court never authorized anything.

Which they didn't.

The Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional laws- and that is exactly what they can do- and did.

No they didn't overturn anything. All they did was render a ruling. It's still up to the states whether or not to adhere to their opinion.

Equine excrement! You really are that stupid aren't you? You are right down there on the IQ scale with Huckabee and Cruz

But, from your perspective, even the gutter is up.

Just sayin

 

[Skylar]

So you are advocating incest marriage or you're not? Because all you seem to talk about is siblings marrying.

Only a pervert thinks the two must be the same.

Tell me perv, can't two same sex siblings marry simply to share the economic benefits that gays say is the reason they claim they were being discriminated from?

Or is sex a requirement of marriage?

Common dude, you're not very open minded are you?

So are you advocating incest marriage or not? You keep deflecting every time I ask you.

Where's the deflection?

Incest is an act I detest.

So now you oppose sibling marriage.

Sigh...make up your mind.

Pervert, incest is an act, sex is not a requirement of marriage.

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?

So you support incest marriage....but you oppose incest marriage.

Sigh...its like talking to a schizophrenic. Can you tell me which personality supports incest marriage...and then have him make his case. Then after you can let the other personalities debate it with him

 

[the_human_being]

I've got to sign off. Some of the guys are going out and

The Supreme Court usually doesn't comment on anything unless it is brought before them. I can't figure out why you're so bigoted against it. You claim you're not but anyone can see you really are.

How then can the Supreme Court authorize polygamy.....by never mentioning in a case that has nothing to do with polygamy?

By your logic, Madison v. Marbury authorized polygamy. As it had nothing to do with polygamy nor ever mentioned it.

How did they authorize gay and lesbian marriages? A 5 to 4 vote. Besides, the Supreme Court cannot authorize anything.

Then show us the ruling where the courts authorized polygamy and overrode state laws. You said that the USSC ruling already authorized it.

Where? Quote the ruling you're referring to.

You are a true idiot. I have stated over and over and over and over and over that their ruling did in no way forbid it. Please don't make me repeat it yet again.

You said the Supreme Court opened the door for any almost kind of marriage to take place.

Show me. Don't tell me. Quote the ruling that authorizes polygamy.

I am not going to repeat what I said to you yet again.

 

[the_human_being]

How then can the Supreme Court authorize polygamy.....by never mentioning in a case that has nothing to do with polygamy?

By your logic, Madison v. Marbury authorized polygamy. As it had nothing to do with polygamy nor ever mentioned it.

How did they authorize gay and lesbian marriages? A 5 to 4 vote. Besides, the Supreme Court cannot authorize anything.

Well then why did you ask- the Supreme Court never authorized anything.

Which they didn't.

The Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional laws- and that is exactly what they can do- and did.

No they didn't overturn anything. All they did was render a ruling. It's still up to the states whether or not to adhere to their opinion.

Equine excrement! You really are that stupid aren't you? You are right down there on the IQ scale with Huckabee and Cruz

But, from your perspective, even the gutter is up.

Just sayin

We call them low-life trash.

 

[Skylar]

I've got to sign off. Some of the guys are going out and

How then can the Supreme Court authorize polygamy.....by never mentioning in a case that has nothing to do with polygamy?

By your logic, Madison v. Marbury authorized polygamy. As it had nothing to do with polygamy nor ever mentioned it.

How did they authorize gay and lesbian marriages? A 5 to 4 vote. Besides, the Supreme Court cannot authorize anything.

Then show us the ruling where the courts authorized polygamy and overrode state laws. You said that the USSC ruling already authorized it.

Where? Quote the ruling you're referring to.

You are a true idiot. I have stated over and over and over and over and over that their ruling did in no way forbid it. Please don't make me repeat it yet again.

You said the Supreme Court opened the door for any almost kind of marriage to take place.

Show me. Don't tell me. Quote the ruling that authorizes polygamy.

I am not going to repeat what I said to you yet again.

You said this:

"The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place."

Show me. Quote the passage of the ruling that you believe authorized polygamy.

 

[Syriusly]

Unless they don't. As you've noted, the Supreme Court has never so much as mentioned it. Let alone shown the slightest interest in protecting it as a right.

The Supreme Court usually doesn't comment on anything unless it is brought before them. I can't figure out why you're so bigoted against it. You claim you're not but anyone can see you really are.

How then can the Supreme Court authorize polygamy.....by never mentioning in a case that has nothing to do with polygamy?

By your logic, Madison v. Marbury authorized polygamy. As it had nothing to do with polygamy nor ever mentioned it.

How did they authorize gay and lesbian marriages? A 5 to 4 vote. Besides, the Supreme Court cannot authorize anything.

Well then why did you ask- the Supreme Court never authorized anything.

Which they didn't.

The Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional laws- and that is exactly what they can do- and did.

No they didn't overturn anything. All they did was render a ruling. It's still up to the states whether or not to adhere to their opinion.

Just like the Supreme Court overturned bans on mixed race marriages, the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriages.

And despite the grumblings from bigots- the States obeyed the Constitution and complied.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How did they authorize gay and lesbian marriages? A 5 to 4 vote. Besides, the Supreme Court cannot authorize anything.

Well then why did you ask- the Supreme Court never authorized anything.

Which they didn't.

The Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional laws- and that is exactly what they can do- and did.

No they didn't overturn anything. All they did was render a ruling. It's still up to the states whether or not to adhere to their opinion.

Equine excrement! You really are that stupid aren't you? You are right down there on the IQ scale with Huckabee and Cruz

But, from your perspective, even the gutter is up.

Just sayin

We call them low-life trash.

Here is some horseshit that I think you can relate to...

Chuck Missler: Homosexuality Proves That America Is Doomed Submitted by Brian Tashman on Monday, 10/5/2015 2:15 pm

During televangelist Jim Bakker’s September “Prophetic Conference,” pastor Chuck Missler said that there is little to no hope that America can avoid God’s judgment, insisting that the U.S. is already experiencing divine wrath. “It’s going to get darker and darker and darker,” he said. Missler lamented that hate crime laws have supposedly criminalized the freedom of speech while members of the media are somehow not in jail for treason: “We have a media that is the lapdog of the government.

The purpose of the media in a democracy is to inform the electorate; we have a media that takes pride in shaping opinions rather than informing them and that should be a crime and they should be tried for treason in effect because that’s their job.” Increasing acceptance of homosexuality, Missler said, is a sign that “there is a judgment of God prevailing and it’s going to increase,” in addition to the fact that “the people who are trying to destroy America have taken over.” - See more at: Chuck Missler: Homosexuality Proves That America Is Doomed

 

[Pop23]

Only a pervert thinks the two must be the same.

Tell me perv, can't two same sex siblings marry simply to share the economic benefits that gays say is the reason they claim they were being discriminated from?

Or is sex a requirement of marriage?

Common dude, you're not very open minded are you?

So are you advocating incest marriage or not? You keep deflecting every time I ask you.

Where's the deflection?

Incest is an act I detest.

So now you oppose sibling marriage.

Sigh...make up your mind.

Pervert, incest is an act, sex is not a requirement of marriage.

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?

So you support incest marriage....but you oppose incest marriage.

Sigh...its like talking to a schizophrenic. Can you tell me which personality supports incest marriage...and then have him make his case. Then after you can let the other personalities debate it with him

You seem to think sex is a requirement of two family members entering into an economic beneficial contract, just like literally millions of Americans have.

I suppose the Clintons have a few, the Kennedys likely have many. None of which require sex between their partners (Hint: neither does marriage).

Since you appear to think sex is a marriage requirement, can you explain just what kind of sex is required? The amount of sex required?

Go on pervert, let us in on this big secret cuz, damn, I can't find anywhere within the law that requires this sex requirement you think there is.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Skylar]

So are you advocating incest marriage or not? You keep deflecting every time I ask you.

Where's the deflection?

Incest is an act I detest.

So now you oppose sibling marriage.

Sigh...make up your mind.

Pervert, incest is an act, sex is not a requirement of marriage.

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?

So you support incest marriage....but you oppose incest marriage.

Sigh...its like talking to a schizophrenic. Can you tell me which personality supports incest marriage...and then have him make his case. Then after you can let the other personalities debate it with him

You seem to think sex is a requirement of two family members entering into an economic beneficial contract, just like literally millions of Americans have.

I suppose the Clintons have a few, the Kennedys likely have many. None of which require sex between their partners (Hint: neither does marriage).

Since you appear to think sex is a marriage requirement, can you explain just what kind of sex is required? The amount of sex required?

Go on pervert, let us in on this big secret cuz, damn, I can't find anywhere within the law that requires this sex requirement you think there is.

Thanks in advance.

I seem to think that you keep contradicting yourself. Insisting on your advocacy of incest marriage before condemning it before reaffirming that incest marriage is what you're arguing for. Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

By all means, make your case for incest marriage.

 

[Pop23]

Where's the deflection?

Incest is an act I detest.

So now you oppose sibling marriage.

Sigh...make up your mind.

Pervert, incest is an act, sex is not a requirement of marriage.

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?

So you support incest marriage....but you oppose incest marriage.

Sigh...its like talking to a schizophrenic. Can you tell me which personality supports incest marriage...and then have him make his case. Then after you can let the other personalities debate it with him

You seem to think sex is a requirement of two family members entering into an economic beneficial contract, just like literally millions of Americans have.

I suppose the Clintons have a few, the Kennedys likely have many. None of which require sex between their partners (Hint: neither does marriage).

Since you appear to think sex is a marriage requirement, can you explain just what kind of sex is required? The amount of sex required?

Go on pervert, let us in on this big secret cuz, damn, I can't find anywhere within the law that requires this sex requirement you think there is.

Thanks in advance.

I seem to think that you keep contradicting yourself. Insisting on your advocacy of incest marriage before condemning it before reaffirming that incest marriage is what you're arguing for. Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

By all means, make your case for incest marriage.

You do understand that there is no requirement for sex in civil marriage.

Are you with me so far.

Incest is an sexual act.

Since there is no requirement for any sexual acts within marriage, then it is your presumption that my statement that:

Same sex siblings are being denied equal protection under the law.

Is somehow advocating incestuous marriage.

It would be equally logical that your implication that sex MUST be a part of marriage, that you are an advocate of marital rape.

You are truly a disgusting pervert or a member of some male dominance cult.

Which one?

 

[Montrovant]

OMG!

Pop is saying that incest is an act, therefore incest marriage is marriage based on sex between close relations. If you use a different term, such as close relation marriage, this whole side argument can at least change a bit.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

 

[Skylar]

So now you oppose sibling marriage.

Sigh...make up your mind.

Pervert, incest is an act, sex is not a requirement of marriage.

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?

So you support incest marriage....but you oppose incest marriage.

Sigh...its like talking to a schizophrenic. Can you tell me which personality supports incest marriage...and then have him make his case. Then after you can let the other personalities debate it with him

You seem to think sex is a requirement of two family members entering into an economic beneficial contract, just like literally millions of Americans have.

I suppose the Clintons have a few, the Kennedys likely have many. None of which require sex between their partners (Hint: neither does marriage).

Since you appear to think sex is a marriage requirement, can you explain just what kind of sex is required? The amount of sex required?

Go on pervert, let us in on this big secret cuz, damn, I can't find anywhere within the law that requires this sex requirement you think there is.

Thanks in advance.

I seem to think that you keep contradicting yourself. Insisting on your advocacy of incest marriage before condemning it before reaffirming that incest marriage is what you're arguing for. Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

By all means, make your case for incest marriage.

You do understand that there is no requirement for sex in civil marriage.

Are you with me so far.

Incest is an sexual act.

Since there is no requirement for any sexual acts within marriage, then it is your presumption that my statement that:

Same sex siblings are being denied equal protection under the law.

Is somehow advocating incestuous marriage.

It would be equally logical that your implication that sex MUST be a part of marriage, that you are an advocate of marital rape.

You are truly a disgusting pervert or a member of some male dominance cult.

Which one?

You do realize that's not making your case for incest marriage. Or even stating if or why you support it.

Do you always try to evade such plain invitations to make your argument? Or only when discussing your obsession with incest?

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Oh, you want to use tradition, assumptions and vast majority as marriage qualifications?

HOW CUTE IS THAT!

Go on with your other arguments, of course, most of those will occur outside of closely related families.

You do understand, I do not want close family relatives to gain the ability to marry, but since marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman, make your argument (keep equal protection in mind) that two siblings, wishing to Marry so they can share the economic benefit, are not being discriminated against. Also, the Compelling State interest in the denial of the right.

Understand, the couple involved are allowed to define what the marriage is, not the State.

Thanks in advance for, what I am sure, a post that will straighten this all out.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Oh, you want to use tradition, assumptions and vast majority as marriage qualifications?

HOW CUTE IS THAT!

Go on with your other arguments, of course, most of those will occur outside of closely related families.

You do understand, I do not want close family relatives to gain the ability to marry, but since marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman, make your argument (keep equal protection in mind) that two siblings, wishing to Marry so they can share the economic benefit, are not being discriminated against. Also, the Compelling State interest in the denial of the right.

Understand, the couple involved are allowed to define what the marriage is, not the State.

Thanks in advance for, what I am sure, will straighten this all out.

So now you don't want close family relations to gain the ability to marry.

Wow. You literally switch your position with every post.

 

[Pop23]

Pervert, incest is an act, sex is not a requirement of marriage.

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?

So you support incest marriage....but you oppose incest marriage.

Sigh...its like talking to a schizophrenic. Can you tell me which personality supports incest marriage...and then have him make his case. Then after you can let the other personalities debate it with him

You seem to think sex is a requirement of two family members entering into an economic beneficial contract, just like literally millions of Americans have.

I suppose the Clintons have a few, the Kennedys likely have many. None of which require sex between their partners (Hint: neither does marriage).

Since you appear to think sex is a marriage requirement, can you explain just what kind of sex is required? The amount of sex required?

Go on pervert, let us in on this big secret cuz, damn, I can't find anywhere within the law that requires this sex requirement you think there is.

Thanks in advance.

I seem to think that you keep contradicting yourself. Insisting on your advocacy of incest marriage before condemning it before reaffirming that incest marriage is what you're arguing for. Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

By all means, make your case for incest marriage.

You do understand that there is no requirement for sex in civil marriage.

Are you with me so far.

Incest is an sexual act.

Since there is no requirement for any sexual acts within marriage, then it is your presumption that my statement that:

Same sex siblings are being denied equal protection under the law.

Is somehow advocating incestuous marriage.

It would be equally logical that your implication that sex MUST be a part of marriage, that you are an advocate of marital rape.

You are truly a disgusting pervert or a member of some male dominance cult.

Which one?

You do realize that's not making your case for incest marriage. Or even stating if or why you support it.

Do you always try to evade such plain invitations to make your argument? Or only when discussing your obsession with incest?

What might straighten it out would be a link in where I advocate for incestuous marriage.

Go ahead, provide the link.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Oh, you want to use tradition, assumptions and vast majority as marriage qualifications?

HOW CUTE IS THAT!

Go on with your other arguments, of course, most of those will occur outside of closely related families.

You do understand, I do not want close family relatives to gain the ability to marry, but since marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman, make your argument (keep equal protection in mind) that two siblings, wishing to Marry so they can share the economic benefit, are not being discriminated against. Also, the Compelling State interest in the denial of the right.

Understand, the couple involved are allowed to define what the marriage is, not the State.

Thanks in advance for, what I am sure, will straighten this all out.

So now you don't want close family relations to gain the ability to marry.

Wow. You literally switch your position with every post.

Supply the link to where I said that's what I wanted nut bag.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Oh, you want to use tradition, assumptions and vast majority as marriage qualifications?

HOW CUTE IS THAT!

Go on with your other arguments, of course, most of those will occur outside of closely related families.

You do understand, I do not want close family relatives to gain the ability to marry, but since marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman, make your argument (keep equal protection in mind) that two siblings, wishing to Marry so they can share the economic benefit, are not being discriminated against. Also, the Compelling State interest in the denial of the right.

Understand, the couple involved are allowed to define what the marriage is, not the State.

Thanks in advance for, what I am sure, will straighten this all out.

So now you don't want close family relations to gain the ability to marry.

Wow. You literally switch your position with every post.

Supply the link to where I said that's what I wanted nut bag.

So you're demanding that we make an argument that even YOU don't agree with?

Can you see why that might induce some....snickers?

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Oh, you want to use tradition, assumptions and vast majority as marriage qualifications?

HOW CUTE IS THAT!

Go on with your other arguments, of course, most of those will occur outside of closely related families.

You do understand, I do not want close family relatives to gain the ability to marry, but since marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman, make your argument (keep equal protection in mind) that two siblings, wishing to Marry so they can share the economic benefit, are not being discriminated against. Also, the Compelling State interest in the denial of the right.

Understand, the couple involved are allowed to define what the marriage is, not the State.

Thanks in advance for, what I am sure, will straighten this all out.

So now you don't want close family relations to gain the ability to marry.

Wow. You literally switch your position with every post.

Supply the link to where I said that's what I wanted nut bag.

So you're demanding that we make an argument that even YOU don't agree with?

Can you see why that might induce some....snickers?

Oh, I see you can't supply a link to what you insisted I said.

You're not simply a troll, but an obvious liar.

But we already knew that.

Accusing others without back up.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Oh, you want to use tradition, assumptions and vast majority as marriage qualifications?

HOW CUTE IS THAT!

Go on with your other arguments, of course, most of those will occur outside of closely related families.

You do understand, I do not want close family relatives to gain the ability to marry, but since marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman, make your argument (keep equal protection in mind) that two siblings, wishing to Marry so they can share the economic benefit, are not being discriminated against. Also, the Compelling State interest in the denial of the right.

Understand, the couple involved are allowed to define what the marriage is, not the State.

Thanks in advance for, what I am sure, will straighten this all out.

So now you don't want close family relations to gain the ability to marry.

Wow. You literally switch your position with every post.

Supply the link to where I said that's what I wanted nut bag.

So you're demanding that we make an argument that even YOU don't agree with?

Can you see why that might induce some....snickers?

Oh, I see you can't supply a link to what you insisted I said.

You speak of little else than incest marriage...in any thread. You now apparently can't make a rational argument for the very topic you constantly bring up. And bizarrely insist that we do.

I mean, if you want to present an argument in favor of incest marriage, feel free. But why would you expect me to?