Killing Homosexual Marriage

[JimBowie1958]

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

Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.

It NEVER gets old, promise.

 

[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.

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.

There is no difference in my opinion and hers, they are both morality-based opinions, except that she found a way to hypocritically allow gay marriage while applying her moral judgment to something else. And yes, she is a judge with authority... that doesn't make her right about gay marriage, it doesn't give her the license to be a hypocrite and not be called on it and it damn well doesn't give YOU that right.

 

[Boss]

his horseshit has been going on for way to long---

Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.

It NEVER gets old, promise.

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007, The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn't get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: ""Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," a "basic civil right."

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

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

Check out the Maryland statute.

Incest is vaginal penetration with person you aren't allowed to marry

Get back with me bro.

 

[Pop23]

Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.

It NEVER gets old, promise.

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007, The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn't get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: ""Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," a "basic civil right."

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf


>>>>

Well there's one.

What's her feeling about heterosexual same sibling marriage?

 

[Montrovant]

his horseshit has been going on for way to long---

Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.

And you wonder why people question your supposed tolerance of homosexuals......

 

[Syriusly]

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

Check out the Maryland statute.

Incest is vaginal penetration with person you aren't allowed to marry

Get back with me bro.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

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

 

[Syriusly]

his horseshit has been going on for way to long---

Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.

And you wonder why people question your supposed tolerance of homosexuals......

Remember- 'some of his best friends are homosexuals'....aka queerbait.

 

[Syriusly]

his horseshit has been going on for way to long---

Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.

We will keep hearing from you because:

Bigots got to hate, hate, hate.

Shake it off, Shake it off.

 

[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.

There is no difference in my opinion and hers,

Oh but there is.

Her opinion is the opinion of someone who would be deciding whether you wanting to marry your sibling was constitutional or not- and she has already pointed out that States have valid compelling reasons to prevent you from marrying your sibling.

Your opinion is just yours- citing yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.

It NEVER gets old, promise.

It never gets old hearing bitter old white guys like yourself telling us what African Americans think.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

his horseshit has been going on for way to long---

Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.

If you did not constantly find it necessary to be so damned nasty and belligerent, you might actually get some respect. Stop yelling and cursing at people! The fact is that since Lawrence v. Texas, a claim to “morality” in and of itself, no longer constitutes a compelling government inters in restricting behavior.

The “End of All Morals Legislation”: The Legacy of the Lawrence Dissent in Obergefell The “End of All Morals Legislation”: The Legacy of the Lawrence Dissent in Obergefell | LGBTQ Policy Journal

The Obergefell decision is a case that defines a generation. Marriage equality and LGBTQ rights are poised for a victory untenable for generations past. Just twelve years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Lawrence v. Texas and, as Justice Scalia argued in the dissent, doomed the “end of all morals legislation.”Lawrence created a legacy evident in tribute during the Obergefell oral arguments, and will serve as a historical bookend, a pioneering case that demonstrates the Court’s transformation and progress. The legacy of the Lawrence decision, and the importance of the dissent, is best appreciated through a wider lens. The Lawrence dissent should be closely examined as a majority of the Justices who decided Obergefell also presided over Lawrence.

A dissent is valuable in that it records a counter majority narrative for history; it demonstrates an alternative thinking the Court should have adopted, and provokes perspective of another view. The dissent for Lawrence, delivered by Justice Scalia, decreed the end of morals legislation by uprooting moral justification for laws supported by the majority in a state that prohibit a practice as immoral—namely sodomy. Lawrence separated homosexual conduct from other morality legislation and banned the linkage to criminal activity for conduct and status, eradicating “morality legislation” created to oppress and criminalize homosexual conduct and identity. The case held that adults have a protected liberty interest in deciding to conduct their private lives “in matters pertaining to sex”, and the laws and traditions of the past half century have indicated an emerging awareness of that liberty.

Now, is that the final word? No it's not. It is an opinion. I’m going to help you out here and show you how you can gain some credibility. You do that by doing the research instead of just pontificating and dumbing it down to an “I’m right and you’re wrong” argument “because I said so” That is just an appeal to ignorance! You have to develop some tolerance and understand for nuances and ambiguity. That is the hallmark of actual intelligence which you have displayed little of. And while what is to follow acknowledges the controversy about the role of morality in legislation, it in no way suggest that questions of morality takes precedence over the need to consider the role of the concept of equal protection under the law. Additionally, it does not negate the need to consider the rational basis, if not the compelling government interest, in curtailing certain behaviors and practice while protecting others. You see Boss, things are just a little more complex that you want to acknowledge or are able to understand.

MORALS LEGISLATION SINCE LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: THE ARGUMENT FOR BONOS MORES "MORALS LEGISLATION SINCE LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: THE ARGUMENT FOR BONOS MOR" by Carman A. Leone

Carman A. Leone, Villanova University School of Law


In order to reach its decision, the Court overturned its 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld an Alabama law that criminalized homosexual sodomy under a rational basis review. In Bowers, the Court held that the perception of morality is a legitimate state interest that satisfies a rational basis challenge. The Lawrence Court, however, not only overturned the holding of Bowers, but it also explicitly rejected the state from using morality as a legitimate state interest for supporting its legislation.


Several United States Circuit Courts of Appeals are now divided as to whether morality alone may serve as state interest in supporting legislation. This paper will argue that morality should satisfy a rational-basis review in light of a century’s wealth of history and tradition in case law that precedes Lawrence.

http://works.bepress.com/carman_leone/1/

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It seems like this is what we are dealing with here. Any of you anti gay folks here willing to renounce this? If not , I'll have to assume that you endorse it. Pop...you there? :

Theodore Shoebat: Satan Is Taking Over America With Sharia-Like 'Sodomism' Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Wednesday, 7/8/2015 11:28 am

Theodore Shoebat is an anti-gay Religious Right activist who is so militant that he openly calls for gays and people who accept gays to be put to death, but that hasn't prohibited him from appearing in an anti-gay documentary along with leading Republican lawmakers and presidential hopefuls or being interviewed on right-wing Christian programs. - See more at: Theodore Shoebat: Satan Is Taking Over America With Sharia-Like 'Sodomism'

Theodore Shoebat: Homosexuality Leads To Cannibalism, Kill Those Who Won’t Submit To Christianity
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 10/9/2015 12:54 pm
Theodore Shoebat posted a video yesterday calling for the institution of a "Christian collectivist society" in America in which collective punishment is imposed and where those who refuse to submit to Christianity are put to death.

As Shoebat explained, the problem with America is that it is too individualistic, only punishing criminals for the crimes they have committed instead of imposing collective punishments in an effort to root out the beliefs or behaviors that led to the crime in the first place.

- See more at: Theodore Shoebat: Homosexuality Leads To Cannibalism, Kill Those Who Won’t Submit To Christianity

Theodore Shoebat Calls For A Global 'Inquisition' To Put Gays To Death Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 9/29/2015 11:32 am Theodore Shoebat, who was among the dozens of anti-gay activists, Republican members of Congress and GOP presidential hopefuls to be featured in Janet Porter's recent anti-gay "Light Wins" documentary, posted a new video over the weekend calling for a global "Inquisition" to eradicate homosexuality once and for all. - See more at: Theodore Shoebat Calls For A Global 'Inquisition' To Put Gays To Death

 

[Syriusly]

It seems like this is what we are dealing with here. A any of you anti gay folks here willing to renounce this? If not , I'll have to assume that you endorse it. Pop...you there? :

Theodore Shoebat: Satan Is Taking Over America With Sharia-Like 'Sodomism' Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Wednesday, 7/8/2015 11:28 am

Theodore Shoebat is an anti-gay Religious Right activist who is so militant that he openly calls for gays and people who accept gays to be put to death, but that hasn't prohibited him from appearing in an anti-gay documentary along with leading Republican lawmakers and presidential hopefuls or being interviewed on right-wing Christian programs. - See more at: Theodore Shoebat: Satan Is Taking Over America With Sharia-Like 'Sodomism'

Theodore Shoebat: Homosexuality Leads To Cannibalism, Kill Those Who Won’t Submit To Christianity
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 10/9/2015 12:54 pm
Theodore Shoebat posted a video yesterday calling for the institution of a "Christian collectivist society" in America in which collective punishment is imposed and where those who refuse to submit to Christianity are put to death.

As Shoebat explained, the problem with America is that it is too individualistic, only punishing criminals for the crimes they have committed instead of imposing collective punishments in an effort to root out the beliefs or behaviors that led to the crime in the first place.

- See more at: Theodore Shoebat: Homosexuality Leads To Cannibalism, Kill Those Who Won’t Submit To Christianity

There are those who think it is 'moral' to kill homosexuals.

This is the problem with Boss's 'morality' argument- people have argued that things from slavery to apartheid were 'morally justified'.

There will always be someone who believes that government should impose his or her morality on everyone else. And Boss doesn't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Pop23]

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

Check out the Maryland statute.

Incest is vaginal penetration with person you aren't allowed to marry

Get back with me bro.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

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

You realize that had nothing to do with the Maryland law, right?

OCD acting up again Sally?

 

[Pop23]

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

Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.

It NEVER gets old, promise.

It never gets old hearing bitter old white guys like yourself telling us what African Americans think.

It never gets old hearing gays think anyone thinks there opinion matter.

 

[Boss]

And Boss doesn't see anything wrong with that.

No, Boss sees everything wrong with that and Syriusly doesn't see anything wrong with it.

Boss is for government not legislating morality from the bench.

Boss is for leaving that to society.

Boss is not trying to force anything on anyone.

Boss is not redefining words to mean new things so he can make his immorality moral (and just).

Boss believes that freedom should be left to the individual and not the court or government.

YOU are the one who seeks to legislate your version of morality on society by judicial activism or whatever means it takes, even if you have to be complete hypocrites to do so.

 

[Boss]

his horseshit has been going on for way to long---

Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.

And you wonder why people question your supposed tolerance of homosexuals......

Remember- 'some of his best friends are homosexuals'....aka queerbait.

Well you certainly aren't one of my gay best friends. Neither is queerbaitriot.

You two are the kind who WOULD advocate for a law to stick your gay little pecker in my mouth without reprisal... that's just the sort of thing that would turn you two perverts on.

 

[Montrovant]

his horseshit has been going on for way to long---

Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.

And you wonder why people question your supposed tolerance of homosexuals......

Remember- 'some of his best friends are homosexuals'....aka queerbait.

Well you certainly aren't one of my gay best friends. Neither is queerbaitriot.

You two are the kind who WOULD advocate for a law to stick your gay little pecker in my mouth without reprisal... that's just the sort of thing that would turn you two perverts on.

Sure thing Mr. Tolerant.