Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

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?

Oh, you want to change the goal post?

You said I advocated incestuous marriage.

Provide that link or admit the lie.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Oh, you want to change the goal post?

You said I advocated incestuous marriage.

Provide that link or admit the lie.

You speak of little else than incest marriage, in any thread....and demand that we make an argument in favor of it.

But you DON'T support it? Can you see my confusion?

 

[Skylar]

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.

 

[Pop23]

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.

^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat

 

[Skylar]

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.

^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat

Or....I'm just profoundly confused by your compulsive obsession with incest marriage and bizarre demands for its advocacy in virtually any thread you comment in on any topic.

And yet despite your constant demands that people advocate the position of incest marriage....to claim you DON'T support it?

Huh? Really?

Why would I make this argument when even someone as obsessed with incest marriage as yourself won't support it?

 

[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.

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.

Did I mention tradition? Feel free to provide a quote where I argued tradition as a reason to have close familial relation marriages illegal. Thanks in advance.

Whether or not close familial relations can marry would depend in part on the marriage laws of the state. However, as I've said to you before, with close family there is a danger of someone abusing their authority over the other person. This is more of a concern with grandparents or parents and children, but the argument could be made that the same danger is too great between siblings as well.

There is also an argument that part of the reason for civil marriage is the creation of a new family unit. Close family relations are already part of a family unit and so do not create a new one but extend a previous one.

Obviously couples cannot define what marriage is. States do that so long as their marriage laws do not violate constitutional protections.

Nothing will straighten this out. Between the basic disagreements about the Obergefell ruling and what it means going forward and your seeming insistence that close family marriages are only banned based on sexual relations, I'm not expecting any middle ground to be found.

 

[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, a post that will straighten this all out.

Did I mention tradition? Feel free to provide a quote where I argued tradition as a reason to have close familial relation marriages illegal. Thanks in advance.

I can't make heads nor tails of Pop's bizarro incest obsession. Most of his posts are veritable word salad at this point. Just random, disjointed talking points that have nothing to do with what he's responding to.

Its like he pulls his responses out of a hat at random.

 

[Pop23]

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.

^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat

Or....I'm just profoundly confused by your compulsive obsession with incest marriage and bizarre demands for its advocacy in virtually any thread you comment in on any topic.

And yet despite your constant demands that people advocate the position of incest marriage....to claim you DON'T support it?

Huh? Really?

Why would I make this argument when even someone as obsessed with incest marriage as yourself won't support it?

Of course you're confused. You think I said something I did not.

You need help, serious help.

You said I advocated incestuous marriage. Then you said I didnt.

Figure it out on your own

 

[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.

Did I mention tradition? Feel free to provide a quote where I argued tradition as a reason to have close familial relation marriages illegal. Thanks in advance.

I can't make heads nor tails of Pop's bizarro incest obsession. Most of his posts are veritable word salad at this point. Just random, disjointed talking points that have nothing to do with what he's responding to.

Its like he pulls his responses out of a hat at random.

Of course you can't. You can't link to one of those post you say confuses you because it doesn't exist.

No wonder you're confused.

Lol, what an ass clown

 

[Skylar]

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.

^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat

Or....I'm just profoundly confused by your compulsive obsession with incest marriage and bizarre demands for its advocacy in virtually any thread you comment in on any topic.

And yet despite your constant demands that people advocate the position of incest marriage....to claim you DON'T support it?

Huh? Really?

Why would I make this argument when even someone as obsessed with incest marriage as yourself won't support it?

Of course you're confused. You think I said something I did not.

I think you're obsessed with the topic of incest and speak of little else. And that you've demanded the advocacy of incest marriage. A lot.

But you *don't* support incest or incest marriage?

Um, are you sure? Because I've never known someone to so relentlessly demand the advocacy of a position they didn't share. You'd be the first.

 

[Pop23]

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.

^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat

Or....I'm just profoundly confused by your compulsive obsession with incest marriage and bizarre demands for its advocacy in virtually any thread you comment in on any topic.

And yet despite your constant demands that people advocate the position of incest marriage....to claim you DON'T support it?

Huh? Really?

Why would I make this argument when even someone as obsessed with incest marriage as yourself won't support it?

Of course you're confused. You think I said something I did not.

I think you're obsessed with the topic of incest and speak of little else. And that you've demanded the advocacy of incest marriage. A lot.

But you *don't* support incest or incest marriage?

Um, are you sure? Because I've never known someone to so relentlessly demand the advocacy of a position they didn't share. You'd be the first.

And yet you still can't produce a post of such advocacy.

Typical lib bullshit

 

[Skylar]

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.

^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat

Or....I'm just profoundly confused by your compulsive obsession with incest marriage and bizarre demands for its advocacy in virtually any thread you comment in on any topic.

And yet despite your constant demands that people advocate the position of incest marriage....to claim you DON'T support it?

Huh? Really?

Why would I make this argument when even someone as obsessed with incest marriage as yourself won't support it?

Of course you're confused. You think I said something I did not.

I think you're obsessed with the topic of incest and speak of little else. And that you've demanded the advocacy of incest marriage. A lot.

But you *don't* support incest or incest marriage?

Um, are you sure? Because I've never known someone to so relentlessly demand the advocacy of a position they didn't share. You'd be the first.

And yet you still can't produce a post of such advocacy.

Typical lib bullshit

So you're compulsively bringing your obsession with incest into almost every thread you comment in.....AND demanding people advocate incest marriage.

But you *don't* support incest marriage?

That doesn't make much sense. Why would you be demanding advocacy for incest marriage so obsessively if you didn't support it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

Its fascinating though. Unless we're talking about guns, conservatives almost always side with State Power over the rights of the individual. What about being a conservative makes you think that the power of the government is so much more important than individual rights?

They are supposed to stay within the confines of the actual words written into the laws, but now they have redefined a word with the fag marriage decision and they decided to completely ignore Congressional specifications on who can get federal subsidies in exchanges at the state level.

They are supposed to stay within the confines of individual rights and the constitution. When a law abrogates rights and violates the constitution, the supreme court is supposed to strike it down.

Which, of course, they did.

The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.

The funny thing is that this will come back to haunt you libtards and you just don't get it.

The SCOTUS has take upon itself the authority to simply rewrite the law if the don't like it, to ignore the text of the law or redefine whatever words allow them to bring about a decision that they prefer.

We are no longer a nation of laws, but are a nation of men now.

They've taken it upon themselves to strike down portions of the law that violate individual rights. As they should have.

They have also taken it upon themselves to redefine the words of laws to make the law mean what they want and they have simply ignored legal text in laws to arrive at concocted decision they want.

What you are justifying is taking the law into the hands of nine old farts and letting them redefine it however they want to and that is not constitutional, nor is it due process.

You libtards are lighting a bonfire that you stand right in the middle of.

 

[Skylar]

The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.

If the specific wordings of the law violate the constitution, they're supposed to overturn those 'wordings'.

Something being written into a law doesn't magically make it constitutional. Or beyond judicial review.

You get that, right?

hey have also taken it upon themselves to redefine the words of laws to make the law mean what they want and they have simply ignored legal text in laws to arrive at concocted decision they want.

You can define marriage anyway you wish.

But the law is bound by constitutional guarantees. And the court ruled on how the State must deal with marriage under the law. Exactly as they should have. I understand that with the exception of guns, conservatives side with the State and government power over individual rights.

But rights are not subject to a vote. And the state can't violate the rights of individuals. Or offer unequal protection under the law.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.

If the specific wordings of the law violate the constitution, they're supposed to overturn those 'wordings'.

Something being written into a law doesn't magically make it constitutional. Or beyond judicial review.

You get that, right?

What you don't get is that when they make the final ruling on a law that says specifically that states without exchanges don't get subsidies and then the courts say that they will just give them the money no matter what the law actually says, unless that law is a specific violation of the Constitution, which it is not, then they are supposed to follow the words of the law.

And redefining words to mean whatever they want them to mean is also judicial legislation and saying you think it goes against the spirit of the Constitution is horse shit. Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee a right for two men to butt fuck each other and call it marriage.

hey have also taken it upon themselves to redefine the words of laws to make the law mean what they want and they have simply ignored legal text in laws to arrive at concocted decision they want.

You can define marriage anyway you wish.

But the law is bound by constitutional guarantees. And the court ruled on how the State must deal with marriage under the law. Exactly as they should have. I understand that with the exception of guns, conservatives side with the State and government power over individual rights.

But rights are not subject to a vote. And the state can't violate the rights of individuals. Or offer unequal protection under the law.

And when activist judges read the Constitution they are supposed to interpret the words of the Constitution, instead they are redefining words and ignoring entire amendments to render rulings that are simply insane.

This will be fixed, I guaran-damn-tee it, dude.

 

[Pop23]

^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat

Or....I'm just profoundly confused by your compulsive obsession with incest marriage and bizarre demands for its advocacy in virtually any thread you comment in on any topic.

And yet despite your constant demands that people advocate the position of incest marriage....to claim you DON'T support it?

Huh? Really?

Why would I make this argument when even someone as obsessed with incest marriage as yourself won't support it?

Of course you're confused. You think I said something I did not.

I think you're obsessed with the topic of incest and speak of little else. And that you've demanded the advocacy of incest marriage. A lot.

But you *don't* support incest or incest marriage?

Um, are you sure? Because I've never known someone to so relentlessly demand the advocacy of a position they didn't share. You'd be the first.

And yet you still can't produce a post of such advocacy.

Typical lib bullshit

So you're compulsively bringing your obsession with incest into almost every thread you comment in.....AND demanding people advocate incest marriage.

But you *don't* support incest marriage?

That doesn't make much sense. Why would you be demanding advocacy for incest marriage so obsessively if you didn't support it?

Of course then there are two reasons you can't see it.

1. You don't take the time to actually read the arguments

Or

2. You lie that I said something I never did without providing requested links.

Or both, which is the obvious answer.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The problem with libtards is that they hijacked an honorable tradition of classic liberalism and turned it upside down from the inside.

Where a classic liberal would advocate free speech and letting people voice their opinions, libtards want to silence their opposition by any means necessary.

Where classic liberals respected the rule of law, libtards since the late 1960's have started advocating judicial legislation and judicial activism to use the courts to circumvent the will of the people of the nation by twisting the Constitution and the law to mean whatever they want it to mean..

Where liberals used to advocate respect for our nations Founders, the current libtards disrespect them and dismiss them as slave owning white rapists.

A libtard is not a classic liberal, they are a Pod People copy of the real thing that is now extinct.

What is ironic though, is that Obama is setting the precedent for a conservative President, backed by the military, doing whatever the hell he wants with the laws of this nation, and after stacking the SCOTUS making almost any kind of ruling they want.

Libtards don't seem to realize that they are only about 20% of the population and they are undermining their own right to use the law to protect their own interests in the face of a hostile public.

 

[Skylar]

The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.

If the specific wordings of the law violate the constitution, they're supposed to overturn those 'wordings'.

Something being written into a law doesn't magically make it constitutional. Or beyond judicial review.

You get that, right?

What you don't get is that when they make the final ruling on a law that says specifically that states without exchanges don't get subsidies and then the courts say that they will just give them the money no matter what the law actually says, unless that law is a specific violation of the Constitution, which it is not, then they are supposed to follow the words of the law.

So you've just completely abandoned your gay marriage babble then?

And redefining words to mean whatever they want them to mean is also judicial legislation and saying you think it goes against the spirit of the Constitution is horse shit. Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee a right for two men to butt fuck each other and call it marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that a right has to be in the constitution to exist?

You might want to take a look at the 9th amendment. As it explicitly refutes such nonsense. The constitution defines powers. Its not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor was ever intended to be.

You've literally reimagined the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. Apparently, citing yourself. As neither the courts nor the founders ever argued this.

And when activist judges read the Constitution they are supposed to interpret the words of the Constitution, instead they are redefining words and ignoring entire amendments to render rulings that are simply insane.

With an 'activist judge' being anyone who disagrees with you? First, the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. So your entire argument that unless a right is in the constitution, it doesn't exist is a fundamentally false premise. Complete horseshit actually.

Second, the 14th amendment mandates equal protection under the law. And denying same sex couples the right to marry violated the 14th amendment. Says who? Says the USSC, the body with the judicial power and the responsibility to interpret the constitution.

You disagree. Um, so. You're nobody. You're not delegated any authority to define any legal term or interpret anything. You're welcome to your opinion. And I'm welcome to ignore your opinion.

The USSC on the other hand creates binding precedent.

This will be fixed, I guaran-damn-tee it, dude.

It is fixed. And most Americans are fine with it. With gay marriage support at an all time high of 60%...while opposition lingers at anemic 37%.

That's a 23 point spread. With most of the opposition concentrated among the elderly. Folks under 30 support same sex marriage by rates approaching 80%.

So....you don't have the numbers. Not in the electorate. Not on the court. Not among the states for an amendment. And not among our fighting age folks if you wanted to go extra-constitutional over this issue.

Same sex marriage is the law of the land. And there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Not whatever YOU said it is.