Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children. And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children. Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..

It is the paradox that the USSC created when they removed the opposite gender qualification from a law that does not require sex as a requirement to enter into these partnership..

No paradox- other than the one invented in your own mind.

 

[Skylar]

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?

YES!

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was all debunked 40 pages ago.

 

[Syriusly]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

According to you it doesn't. According to the law, at this point, it does. If the law is challenged we will see what the states argue is the interest in preventing immediate family from marrying.

I have given you multiple possible reasons other than procreation that could be argued, but you have dismissed them. I doubt you would accept any possible reason as it would go against your narrative.

You're under the misconception that Pop cares about any of the reasons. Or even discussing the topic. The purpose of his incest marriage obsession is to shut these threads down. He's trolling.

So troll the troll. I call it 'ubertrolling'.

Yep- Pop just wants another thread to drag his straw man into.

Just another bitter homophobe hating that gay couples can marry.

 

[Syriusly]

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

For an idiot you are pretty stoopid.

The State must produce a compelling reason to deny an individual his rights.

So, since sex is not a requirement, it is your bigotted traditionalist view, and nothing else that would deny a same sex sibling couple the rights, dignity and benefits of marriage..

'and nothing else'

Says Pops

Quoting himself.

 

[Syriusly]

There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children. And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children. Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..

It is the paradox that the USSC created when they removed the opposite gender qualification from a law that does not require sex as a requirement to enter into these partnership.

It seems to create a legal contract that is simply a financial tool not much different than an S-Corp or LLC

Ignoring this before making this paradox a part of the discussion was exactly why this was framed as "gay marriage" and not Same Gender Marriage.

So, either incest, polygamy and gay marriage are all legal at once, because of equality, or all three of them are subject to state regulation "for the good of children".

That's what passes for logic in your tiny bigoted mind.

 

[Boss]

My argument is remarkably simple

Much like you!

 

[Skylar]

My argument is remarkably simple

Much like you!

Smiling......and as frosting on your fail cake, you've been reduced to personal insults. Albeit cheerful ones!

No wonder you abandoned SB377.

 

[Syriusly]

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?

The OP was debunked homophobic nonsense from the beginning.

 

[Boss]

Your another one who does not understand much or is playing stupid. The post clearly had little or nothing to do with sex or incest as reasons why it may not be in the best interest of society to allow it.

“all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”.

Not only that, but this is really the only substantive reason presented. The rest is conjecture and smear of the opposition.

 

[Boss]

No wonder you abandoned SB377

LMFAOooo... Why in the hell would I want to spend ANY time on a failed bill in the last session of the Alabama state legislature?

 

[Skylar]

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?

The OP was debunked homophobic nonsense from the beginning.

It was factually baseless to be sure. But its actively been disproven by SB377.

 

[Boss]

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble..

Boss hasn't abandoned anything, the OP still stands.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest.

If you have a case to make for incest marriage and polygamy....make it.

What are the odds you'll give us the same snivelling excuses that Pop always does?

Polygamists are already making it. Incestophiles will eventually make it. It will all work it's way through the system and the liberal SCOTUS will probably ordain it into law. By that time, you will have had some "come to jesus" moment when you realize you can't be a hypocrite and you have to support it. This isn't some fucking cartoon or sit-com...things don't happen in 22 minutes or a day... it takes some time to go through the bowels of the legal system. Ogeberfell is relatively new law. The ramifications have not been realized yet, but they WILL be! That's the argument here.


Your retort is... Well it hasn't happened yet! Nananaa boo boo!

My argument is that the State of Virginia made those same predictions when defending bans on mixed race marriage.

And 50 years later- the predictions of the racist of Virginia have not come to pass, and 50 years from now, your homophobic arguments won't have either.

 

[Syriusly]

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble..

Boss hasn't abandoned anything, the OP still stands.

Still the same piece of crap it was from the beginning.

Where Boss argues to kill all marriage so he can deny marriage to homosexuals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your another one who does not understand much or is playing stupid. The post clearly had little or nothing to do with sex or incest as reasons why it may not be in the best interest of society to allow it.

“all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”.

Not only that, but this is really the only substantive reason presented. The rest is conjecture and smear of the opposition.

So then you agree that there is a compelling reason to prohibit sibling marriage but none to prohibit unrelated same sex marriage? Good!

 

[Skylar]

No wonder you abandoned SB377

LMFAOooo... Why in the hell would I want to spend ANY time on a failed bill in the last session of the Alabama state legislature?

Didn't you say the bill was already happening and passed? But now its a 'failed bill'?

What a difference a couple of days makes...eh buddy?

Keep backpedalling. It makes me giggle.

 

[Skylar]

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble..

Boss hasn't abandoned anything, the OP still stands.

Save that none of what you claimed about SB377 does anything you claimed it does. Nor is it 'killing homosexual marriage' in the slightest.

So beyond being utterly wrong on every point.....your argument stands?

 

[bertramhall]

Good grief conservatives get over it. Welcome to the 21st century.

so you shouldn`t celebrate Thanksgiving day