Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

And you don't either but it damn sure sounds like you believe you do... you're making the exact same arguments against incestophile marriage that was made against homosexual marriage..

Boss- when have I made an argument 'against incestophile marriage'?

I have pointed out that States- and one judge in particular has presented what they consider to be compelling arguments against 'incestophile' marriage.

And no- those arguments were not the same arguments made against homosexual marriage. Are you lying again- or just ignorant again? Who knows.

Once again from the Wisconsin case:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

Abuse, exploitation and 'threats to the social safety net' were not arguments made by the State of Wisconsin against gay marriage.

You and Pops can pretend whatever you want to pretend- but in reality- States have made separate and distinctly different reasons in defense of bans of incestuous and polygamous marriage.

And meanwhile- couples in love- gay and straight- are getting legally married- here and in Alabama- and that is wonderful.

Okay, but...

...polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

Is not ANY different than the argument made against striking down sodomy laws making homosexuality legal. These are ALL moral-based judgments. For some reason, you believe (and this judge) that we can apply morality to certain things but not other things..

Prove it.

Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again.

I have made a citation from a Judge regarding what she considers to be compelling reasons against incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You have nothing to counter this but your insistence that she is wrong.

 

[Pop23]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.

Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you.

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument.

a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally

Are you as seriously deranged as you're logic suggests.

The "Loving" ruling came prior to Obergfell. Prior to Obergfell marriage was between a man and a woman with the protection that the two not be closely related. Obergfell changed that.

Don't you even read the papers?

Of course not, you're a bigoted, racist.

 

[Syriusly]

If any rational person needs proof of what this is all about, they need look no further than this kind of a retort. It is clearly obvious that you are thrilled with the thought of doing something that you think bothers me personally. You get some sick satisfaction of trying to rub my nose in it. I'm already on record saying that I don't give a shit what you call marriage, I want every American to have the right to define marriage for themselves without government mandating it. You want to do things to piss off the right and then rub their noses in it. That's what this is about for you.... you hide behind this "moral righteousness" that is as phony as you are when it comes to gay couples.

I am happy that my friends can get legally married.

I take as much pleasure in your discomfort as I would have for the discomfort of the bigots who were just as dismayed when the bans of mixed race couples was overturned by the Supreme Court.

You were the one who started a thread about how you want to 'kill homosexual' marriage. Don't want your bigotry rubbed in your face then stop starting bigoted threads.

 

[Syriusly]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.

Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you.

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument.

a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally

Are you as seriously deranged as you're logic suggests.

The "Loving" ruling came prior to Obergfell. Prior to Obergfell marriage was between a man and a woman with the protection that the two not be closely related. Obergfell changed that.

And you sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages.

 

[Pop23]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

They would be obvious if Crabby could provide a statute that requires sex in marriage.

You and Crabby obviously think there is, so provide the link or admit you and Crabby are stoopid.

Judge Crabb doesn't mention sex- again that is you with your sex on the brains.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

The judge can make whatever statement of opinion she wants.

Yet to back this opinion up, you and Crabby Patty, need to provide the evidence that the opinion has merit.

Provide a link to the statute that requires sex as a requirement to marry or admit you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Without this supporting documentation........

You fail.

 

[Syriusly]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

Yes, Judge Crabb interjected her moral opinion on society and you are fine with that. You don't mind judicial moral fascism as long as it's a liberal dishing it out. And that's the problem I have with you... you're a two-faced hypocritical piece of shit. You have the unmitigated nerve to sit here and present the exact same moral arguments made years ago against legalization of sodomy and not bat an eye..

Here is the thing.

I have already shown that you are a lying piece of shit.

Your two OP's show you are a hateful, homophobic bigoted piece of shit, who wants to impose your personal 'morality' on all Americans- so you can use the law to tell us all what we can- and cannot do- you are indeed a fascist- who would impose your will on everyone.

You keep pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact.

When I produce actual quotes from court decisions, you want to argue that everyone is wrong but you.

Here is what you have claimed twice now:
present the exact same moral arguments made years ago against legalization of sodomy and not bat an eye.

For once in your posting history on USMB- stand behind one of your claims- see if you can prove it with anything more than what you pull out of your saggy ass.

 

[Syriusly]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

They would be obvious if Crabby could provide a statute that requires sex in marriage.

You and Crabby obviously think there is, so provide the link or admit you and Crabby are stoopid.

Judge Crabb doesn't mention sex- again that is you with your sex on the brains.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

You fail.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

 

[Pop23]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.

Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you.

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument.

a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally

Are you as seriously deranged as you're logic suggests.

The "Loving" ruling came prior to Obergfell. Prior to Obergfell marriage was between a man and a woman with the protection that the two not be closely related. Obergfell changed that.

And you sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages.

Just as Virginia denied Loving his due process, you would deny an entire class of people a "right" based on you're bigoted OPINION, without any probable cause and without a written document to prove your case.

You are not only a bigot, but it appears you are a Nazi. Denying people a right based on one judges opinion and no supporting legal document.

Amazing how progressive I am, and what a wing-nut you've become.

 

[Pop23]

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

They would be obvious if Crabby could provide a statute that requires sex in marriage.

You and Crabby obviously think there is, so provide the link or admit you and Crabby are stoopid.

Judge Crabb doesn't mention sex- again that is you with your sex on the brains.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

You fail.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

And the supporting document that sex is a requirement of marriage is?

You obviously forgot the link, Right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I thought that this was interesting. These whacko conservatives will try anything! This is just as stupid as the contention that Obergefell opened the door to bestiality and pedophilia

Conservative Media Argue Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Creates Constitutional Right To Carry A Gun In Public Conservative Media Argue Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Creates Constitutional Right To Carry A Gun In Public

Conservative media used the Supreme Court decision affirming that marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans to argue that the Constitution also requires states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. But the Supreme Court has never held that carrying a gun in public is a fundamental right.

Conservative media and the National Rifle Association (NRA) quickly seized on the decision to draw a parallel with concealed carry reciprocity, a top federal legislative priority of the NRA. Reciprocity legislation, also known as federally mandated concealed carry, would force states to recognize permits to carry concealed guns issued by other states, regardless of what the issuing state's standards are for issuing permits.

Reciprocity legislation has been introduced in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, but conservative media and the NRA view Obergefell as an opportunity to argue that the Constitution extends at least some right to reciprocal permit recognition regardless of whether Congress acts. The problem with that argument, however, is that the 2008 landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller limited the scope of the Second Amendment right to gun possession to people's homes.

 

[Montrovant]

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

And?

Is there a question you would actually like to ask?

You are the one who felt the need to get in on this discussion which began with someone saying that blowjobs are bad, I don't know where you're going with it.

 

[Pop23]

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

And?

Is there a question you would actually like to ask?

You are the one who felt the need to get in on this discussion which began with someone saying that blowjobs are bad, I don't know where you're going with it.

I'll get back to once she's done with the hummer.....

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

They would be obvious if Crabby could provide a statute that requires sex in marriage.

You and Crabby obviously think there is, so provide the link or admit you and Crabby are stoopid.

Judge Crabb doesn't mention sex- again that is you with your sex on the brains.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

You fail.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

And the supporting document that sex is a requirement of marriage is?

You obviously forgot the link, Right?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

 

[Syriusly]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.

Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you.

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument.

a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally

Are you as seriously deranged as you're logic suggests.

The "Loving" ruling came prior to Obergfell. Prior to Obergfell marriage was between a man and a woman with the protection that the two not be closely related. Obergfell changed that.

And you sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages.

Just as Virginia denied Loving his due process, you would deny an entire class of people a "right" based on you're bigoted OPINION, without any probable cause and without a written document to prove your case..

Who would I deny?

You- as you always do- drag your straw man into another thread- and then accuse everyone else of being denying rights.

But the only one demanding that rights be denied are you and Boss.

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

 

[Pop23]

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.

Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you.

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument.

a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally

Are you as seriously deranged as you're logic suggests.

The "Loving" ruling came prior to Obergfell. Prior to Obergfell marriage was between a man and a woman with the protection that the two not be closely related. Obergfell changed that.

And you sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages.

Just as Virginia denied Loving his due process, you would deny an entire class of people a "right" based on you're bigoted OPINION, without any probable cause and without a written document to prove your case..

Who would I deny?

You- as you always do- drag your straw man into another thread- and then accuse everyone else of being denying rights.

But the only one demanding that rights be denied are you and Boss.

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Then you must support the rights of same sex siblings to marry?

 

[Boss]

Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again.

I have made a citation from a Judge regarding what she considers to be compelling reasons against incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You have nothing to counter this but your insistence that she is wrong.

I didn't say she was wrong. I said she made a moral determination in her consideration. That's the problem here.. you keep misinterpreting what is being said. It's because you are a closed-minded bigot who's made up your mind that you need to be a belligerent little prick to anyone who is "conservative" because you are intolerant of conservative values.... except when you can exploit conservative values to justify your immorality.

You didn't "make a citation" you posted an opinion of a judge, you self-aggrandizing little fascist punk. An opinion that is a moral determination... but since it fits your agenda, that's fine... morality is okay as long as you're the one who gets to decide the parameters and cram it down my throat. If I want to impose MY morality, that's a different story... then I am denying your fucking rights!

You're a two-faced little fascist hypocrite who doesn't see your own double standards.

 

[Syriusly]

Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again.

I have made a citation from a Judge regarding what she considers to be compelling reasons against incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You have nothing to counter this but your insistence that she is wrong.

I didn't say she was wrong. I said she made a moral determination in her consideration.

Yes- and once again- you have you- citing your own opinion.

The difference between her opinion and yours- is that hers represents the authority that would determine whether a State's law is constitutional or not, while yours just is your opinion, representing your opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again.

I have made a citation from a Judge regarding what she considers to be compelling reasons against incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You have nothing to counter this but your insistence that she is wrong.

You're a two-faced little fascist hypocrite who doesn't see your own double standards.

You are a blatant liar and I have enjoyed pointing out your blatant lies.

And you are a fascist hypocrite who wants to impose your morality on everyone else- in true fascist fashion.

 

[Syriusly]

Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you.

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument.

a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally

Are you as seriously deranged as you're logic suggests.

The "Loving" ruling came prior to Obergfell. Prior to Obergfell marriage was between a man and a woman with the protection that the two not be closely related. Obergfell changed that.

And you sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages.

Just as Virginia denied Loving his due process, you would deny an entire class of people a "right" based on you're bigoted OPINION, without any probable cause and without a written document to prove your case..

Who would I deny?

You- as you always do- drag your straw man into another thread- and then accuse everyone else of being denying rights.

But the only one demanding that rights be denied are you and Boss.

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

Then you must support the rights of same sex siblings to marry?

Why must I?

Once again- why do you believe I have to dance with your straw man?


You- as you always do- drag your straw man into another thread- and then accuse everyone else of being denying rights.

But the only one demanding that rights be denied are you and Boss.

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This horseshit has been going on for way to long-since same sex marriage come to Mass. and probably a lot long. Same bigoted rhetoric, different day. When are those people going to realize that it's not working and admit that we still have traditional marriage. These people are a joke!:

[paste:font size="4"] Salon.com, May 18, 2004: Homophobia

Gay-marriage licenses are "death certificates"
With a new wave of same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts this week, conservatives once again launched the expected attack. Monday's 50th anniversary of the landmark civil rights case Brown vs. Board of Education provided a poignant backdrop, with some of the rhetoric in heartland states like Colorado and Pennsylvania -- the latter considered key in this year's election -- turning rather ugly:

"I think this is going to awaken people," said Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, according to an AP report published in the Denver Post. "It [gay marriage] is not a civil right. It is a behavior. [Gay-marriage advocates] never had to drink at different water fountains or ride in the back of the bus."

James Dobson, chairman of the Colorado Springs-based Christian group Focus on the Family, offered a grave assessment of the jubilant same-sex couples flocking to court houses in New England.

"We will look back 20, 30, 50 years from now and recall this as the day marriage ceased to have any real meaning in our country. The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage as it has served society for thousands of years."