Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

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.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Perhaps Pop could quote Obergefell saying that incest marriage is now legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

I won't hold my breath.

Don't hold your breath, that's what children do when they don't get what they want,

Oh, wait.

Yeah, that's not a quote from Obergefell saying that incest marriage is legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

That's just you babbling. Try again, this time quoting Obergefell. I'll even help:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me.

Thanks, I'm sure you'd like a show. But your request is not really relevant to Maryland, now is it?

And, incest remains a criminal act, now doesn't it.

And you've yet to quote a post by me that promotes that act

So asking me to dig out a reference to something I never promoted is, well

Your own little fantisy world, now isn't it.

Tsk tsk.

 

[Pop23]

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

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.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

 

[Sally Vater]

Marriage is still a male and female. Bruce Jenner is still a male. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Pop23]

See how that works?

You've now been added to my ignore list. See how that works?

Not to worry, he has lots of other voices I'm his head to keep him company Boss.

 

[Pop23]

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.

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!

Thanks for proving my point. I point out how, among others, imbeciles like you are willing to give up sex in marriage and there you go highlighting my point for me.

Thanks!

Quote to where is said I was wiling.

Even if I were, all those lovely ladies would probably hound me for it. They love them some hunky Pop.

Get in line Faun, but it's a very long line.

You can't stop talking about how sex is not a requirement for marriage.

I can tell you unquestionably, it's a requirement in mine, no matter how much you don't care of its required. The remainder of your delusions ... are well ... your delusions.

Wonderful, you were actually allowed to create your own qualification for marriage.

The question is however, why you feel compelled to project yours onto others?

It's actually a bit sick when you think about it.

 

[Faun]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!

Thanks for proving my point. I point out how, among others, imbeciles like you are willing to give up sex in marriage and there you go highlighting my point for me.

Thanks!

Quote to where is said I was wiling.

Even if I were, all those lovely ladies would probably hound me for it. They love them some hunky Pop.

Get in line Faun, but it's a very long line.

You can't stop talking about how sex is not a requirement for marriage.

I can tell you unquestionably, it's a requirement in mine, no matter how much you don't care of its required. The remainder of your delusions ... are well ... your delusions.

Wonderful, you were actually allowed to create your own qualification for marriage.

The question is however, why you feel compelled to project yours onto others?

It's actually a bit sick when you think about it.

Who knows what you think I've projected onto others? Given your obsession with incest though, who know what you're even thinking?

 

[Faun]

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

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.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

 

[aris2chat]

didn't your mother and your church teach you it was wrong to kill,
far worse than letting two people in love to take an oath to each other before some authority or notary.

Homosexuals have always had other means of publicly declaring their deviant affections for one another... but they were not interested in taking those other avenues, because the goal here is not to declare their deviant affections... it is to further undermine Marriage. This as a function of evil, wherein the further undermining of marriage, further erodes the bearing of marital responsibility, which pushes children further into the grips of the deviants who are interested in the legalization of using children for sexual gratification.

Same sex marriage has been around since the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians
Gays taking vows to each other does not undermine anyone or anything. Why do straights fear homosexuals will somehow minimize their own vows? It I two people pledging their love and commitment to each other. Petty, small minded, bitter people don't seem to understand that marriage is a legal binding, not one exclusive to the "church". Fortunately we frown on children being sold in marriage. Some things in the bible deserve to end. Why do monotheists ignore the fact that all people are supposed to be the children of and blessed by god. Love is something freely given, not conditional. Even if our children move away, disobey or disappoint us, we never stop loving them. The more you love, the more capacity you have for loving others. It grows, not diminishes.
Marriage in modern terms allows them to speak for the other, have access to make medical decision, share in property, access insurance, share the tax burden, work with each other to raise children. For them it is a promise to love and care for each other, to make each other whole, a completing of the circle so to speak.
Marriage is not about god, it about the law. People do not have to get permission from the church or god. Many people choose a civil marriage. Sometimes it might be a mix of faiths and customs or even no faith at all.
God did not create marriage, man did. God did not make only straight men or animals. Homosexual attraction began long before mankind as we know us now. Why do you reject those that god also created?
If there is no god then there can be no religious objection. If there is a god, gays have a right to love and be loved just like everyone else.

Gay marriage is harming no one. Religion has not say in our legal system (thank you forefathers)

People waving the bible as part of their argument don't understand their own book. In the bible, several gays are bless and beloved by god.

If you are going to misused the book, you might as well wipe your arse with it.

 

[aris2chat]

Marriage is still a male and female. Bruce Jenner is still a male. Too bad, so sad.

"legally" jenner is recognized as a woman

We are governed by laws not religion. Religion has not place dictating the law. No one faith, belief or book tells us what is and is not legal.
Marriage is not about faith, it is contract of law.

 

[aris2chat]

... homosexual marriage'... .

Marriage is: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

marriage has nothing to do with god.
You god created homosexuality, so why do you deny them the legal right to pledge their love and commitment to each other? Some churches will wed gays. There are civil ceremonies for people of all beliefs, including the right to not believe.

If your church does not want to perform marriages, they don't have to, but you or your church has not right to deny gays the right to a civil marriage. They do not have the right to translate the country's law or speak for god(s).

 

[JakeStarkey]

boss and pop have been roughly handed. When they are on the wrong side of the law and logic, that's what happens.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

 

[Pop23]

boss and pop have been roughly handed. When they are on the wrong side of the law and logic, that's what happens.

Funny, they are the same arguments your side argued, yet you have no valid arguments of your own now.

Sweet

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that?

Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

You fail twice in one post.

Next?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

 

[Faun]

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

 

[Faun]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

States are part of the United States- but a state is not a Territory.

States have their own jurisdiction.

Don't believe me?

Read the ruling which overturned DOMA.

You're seriously trying to make the claim Congress only passed the law for territories, but not the states?

Are you really this stupid?