Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

According to a judge they do.

According to you they don't.

Go test it out in court if you think you are right.

This is not a court, if your only argument is a quote of an opinion of a judge, why even participate?

What? Your strawman defense start failing?

You ignore every opinion other than your own.

I just enjoy showing how your opinion is so out of touch with reality that you ignore what a Judge says.

I respect her opinion, but it is simply an opinion.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

Go on then, run them through again if it makes you feel better

I'm unaware of any challenges to consanguineous marriage being tested, at least not recently. Can you cite a case where anything I've listed as a possible compelling state interest has been denied?

Or is it that they failed your opinion of what constitutes a compelling state interest?

More, if inbreeding is the only compelling state interest preventing consanguineous marriage, why have infertile consanguineous couples not been permitted to marry?

 

[IronFist]

Well we need stay tolerant to each other but all those progressives need to respect our traditions and way of life. So I say no to gay marriages.

 

[Pop23]

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

Go on then, run them through again if it makes you feel better

I'm unaware of any challenges to consanguineous marriage being tested, at least not recently. Can you cite a case where anything I've listed as a possible compelling state interest has been denied?

Or is it that they failed your opinion of what constitutes a compelling state interest?

More, if inbreeding is the only compelling state interest preventing consanguineous marriage, why have infertile consanguineous couples not been permitted to marry?

Thanks:

I know of no such challenge currently, but any past challenge would have been before the Obergfell ruling.

That is important as the overall prohibition, which met the rules on equal protection, on all too closely relatives, was simply inclusive of male plus female. That is no longer the case.

Looking deeper into it, tradition aside, sex is not a requirement, nor is love, faithfulness or anything but a signature on a document, consent and payment of a fee.

The ramifications are huge.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!

Which isn't a strawman.

You defend by declaring strawman.

I post for equal protection of the law.
1

You post in angst because you are pissed off that Americans who are gay can get married.

You neither believe in equal protection of the law- nor do you want it.

You want the groups you do not approve of discriminated against.

Yet I post that using the equal application of the law as the basis of my argument, that a relationship I oppose (same sex siblings) should have a right to marry.

And I ask again, what is the compelling state interest in denial of these rights?

Come up with answer, using the same legal rule that MUST be applied to all citizens that have this declared constitutional right.

Because you don't like it has already failed judicial muster

Because it goes against nature or tradition failed as well

What is it then?

Your brain does not work very well does it? Must be those paint chips that you are off the doublewide trailer as a kid.

 

[Boss]

Asked and answered.

Well... You are HALF right.

 

[Boss]

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.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

 

[Pop23]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!

Which isn't a strawman.

You defend by declaring strawman.

I post for equal protection of the law.
1

You post in angst because you are pissed off that Americans who are gay can get married.

You neither believe in equal protection of the law- nor do you want it.

You want the groups you do not approve of discriminated against.

Yet I post that using the equal application of the law as the basis of my argument, that a relationship I oppose (same sex siblings) should have a right to marry.

And I ask again, what is the compelling state interest in denial of these rights?

Come up with answer, using the same legal rule that MUST be applied to all citizens that have this declared constitutional right.

Because you don't like it has already failed judicial muster

Because it goes against nature or tradition failed as well

What is it then?

Your brain does not work very well does it? Must be those paint chips that you are off the doublewide trailer as a kid.

Mine works fine.

You come up with a compelling state interest to deny good tax paying citizens the same constitutional rights and benefits to marriage (a contract that does not require sex to enter into), or take your Bigotted ass back home and shine up your dildo collection.

 

[Syriusly]

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

According to a judge they do.

According to you they don't.

Go test it out in court if you think you are right.

This is not a court, if your only argument is a quote of an opinion of a judge, why even participate?

What? Your strawman defense start failing?

The opinion of a legal expert.

Judging on the issue of what is a compelling state interest.

And saying you are wrong.

You are the one who is proclaiming that now there is no legal barrier to sibling marriage- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

I cite an actual legal authority- someone who would actually be in a position to make that legal decision.

Do you believe that Judge Crabb would suddenly change her mind if you sued to marry your sister and suddenly decide the reasons she cited as compelling state interests weren't?

Why not sue and find out.

Like you said- marriage doesn't have to be about sex- go ahead and sue to prove that your opinion is correct.

No one is stopping you- certainly not me- I encourage you to sue to marry your brother or sister.

You ignore every opinion other than your own.

I just enjoy showing how your opinion is so out of touch with reality that you ignore what a Judge says.

I respect her opinion, but it is simply an opinion.

The opinion of a legal expert.

Judging on the issue of what is a compelling state interest.

And saying you are wrong.

You are the one who is proclaiming that now there is no legal barrier to sibling marriage- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

I cite an actual legal authority- someone who would actually be in a position to make that legal decision.

Do you believe that Judge Crabb would suddenly change her mind if you sued to marry your sister and suddenly decide the reasons she cited as compelling state interests weren't?

Why not sue and find out.

Like you said- marriage doesn't have to be about sex- go ahead and sue to prove that your opinion is correct.

No one is stopping you- certainly not me- I encourage you to sue to marry your brother or sister.

You ignore every opinion other than your own.

I just enjoy showing how your opinion is so out of touch with reality that you ignore what a Judge says. I respect her opinion, but it is simply an opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Ok Syriously:

I've pointed this out before.

A major motion picture and a huge best seller called 50 Shades of Gray featured a couple who's relationship was exploitive and abussive.

NOTHING PROHIBITED THEM FROM LEGAL MARRIAGE

And why do you think that their relationship was exploitive and abusive?

But if you want to argue that there should be laws preventing say the Donald Trumps of the world importing brides from foreign countries because they are inherently exploitive- you can of course try to pass that legislation.

Meanwhile- I can continue to point out that specifically one judge has provided specific reasons that she accepts state ban's on incestuous marriage to be justified.

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

 

[Syriusly]

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

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

 

[Syriusly]

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

Go on then, run them through again if it makes you feel better

I'm unaware of any challenges to consanguineous marriage being tested, at least not recently. Can you cite a case where anything I've listed as a possible compelling state interest has been denied?

Or is it that they failed your opinion of what constitutes a compelling state interest?

More, if inbreeding is the only compelling state interest preventing consanguineous marriage, why have infertile consanguineous couples not been permitted to marry?

The ramifications are huge.

Ramifications so huge- you can't find a single legal expert who agrees with you?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

Bullshit;

Wisconsin marriage law permits First cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin marriage law does not permit siblings to marry- or mothers to marry sons- even if they can prove that they cannot procreate.

Therefore there is some other reason besides 'procreation' why Wisconsin prohibits incestuous marriage'

Plain as day to any rational person- but we are dealing with Pops and Boss.

Boss and Pops again- quote only their own opinion- citing themselves- supported by nothing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot.

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.

The entire issue of procreation was out the window long before Obergefell. So were traditional values as an argument. As I have point out, sibling marriage- same sex or not - entails different issue and consequences for society than SSM. and therefore-states may in fact have valid reasons to deny it. Take it to court bubba.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!

Which isn't a strawman.

You defend by declaring strawman.

I post for equal protection of the law.
1

You post in angst because you are pissed off that Americans who are gay can get married.

You neither believe in equal protection of the law- nor do you want it.

You want the groups you do not approve of discriminated against.

Yet I post that using the equal application of the law as the basis of my argument, that a relationship I oppose (same sex siblings) should have a right to marry.

And I ask again, what is the compelling state interest in denial of these rights?

Come up with answer, using the same legal rule that MUST be applied to all citizens that have this declared constitutional right.

Because you don't like it has already failed judicial muster

Because it goes against nature or tradition failed as well

What is it then?

Your brain does not work very well does it? Must be those paint chips that you are off the doublewide trailer as a kid.

Mine works fine.

You come up with a compelling state interest to deny good tax paying citizens the same constitutional rights and benefits to marriage (a contract that does not require sex to enter into), or take your Bigotted ass back home and shine up your dildo collection.

The reason why I think that you are mentally defective is because you repeatedly and inappropriately berate people about being hypocrites and bigots for not supporting sibling marriage and whatever and keep demanding that they come up with some “compelling government interest for not allowing it. You ignore the fact that some people here have in fact stated example of how it may it fact have a detrimental impact on society. They have also tried to school your diseased brain on the ways that it is different than same sex marriage, to no avail.

For my part, I have not taken a position on it and have consistently said that it is a separate issue that should be considered on its own merits. Yet you call be a bigot also. You persist on attacking people for being inconsistent and not coming up with an argument against sibling marriage in order to deflect attention away from the fact that you do not have a valid argument against same sex marriage between unrelated people, as well as the fact that there are many difference between SSM and sibling marriage. It is all a logical fallacy and you are too much of an idiot to even see what you’re doing.

In fact it is my favorite logical fallacy and there is even a special name for it:


Poll Reveals Surprising Fact About Gay Marriage In America quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/


tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

 

[Syriusly]

MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES - Catholic League

Pop is just parroting the opinion of the Catholic League- 12 years ago- almost exactly. I am surprised he is not openly quoting them- except of course it would show how stupid he is- since 12 years later- still no 'incestuous marriages' in Massachusetts.


MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES
November 18, 2003 by Bill
Filed under Latest News Releases
2003 - November Releases

By a vote of 4-3, the Massachusetts Supreme Court voted today to strike down the state’s ban on homosexual marriage. Though the court said homosexuals were entitled to marry, it stopped short of allowing them to obtain a license to do so. Instead, it gave the state legislature 180 days to find a solution.


Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:


“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.

“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES - Catholic League

Pop is just parroting the opinion of the Catholic League- 12 years ago- almost exactly. I am surprised he is not openly quoting them- except of course it would show how stupid he is- since 12 years later- still no 'incestuous marriages' in Massachusetts.


MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES
November 18, 2003 by Bill
Filed under Latest News Releases
2003 - November Releases

By a vote of 4-3, the Massachusetts Supreme Court voted today to strike down the state’s ban on homosexual marriage. Though the court said homosexuals were entitled to marry, it stopped short of allowing them to obtain a license to do so. Instead, it gave the state legislature 180 days to find a solution.


Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:


“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.

“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.

Yup...sounds like the same moronic equine excrement being bandied about here. Shameless fear mongering. This ruling did no such thing, anymore than Obergefell and all the others in between.

 

[Pop23]

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

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

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

 

[Syriusly]

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

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


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

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

Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest.

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots.

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races.

Not really compelling is it?

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

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

And of course your kind have been making these claims since 2003 in Massachusetts.

12 years and still your predictions haven't come to pass. Just like the predictions of your fellow travellers in Virginia that mixed race marriage would lead to incestuous marriages never came to pass either.

 

[Pop23]

MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES - Catholic League

Pop is just parroting the opinion of the Catholic League- 12 years ago- almost exactly. I am surprised he is not openly quoting them- except of course it would show how stupid he is- since 12 years later- still no 'incestuous marriages' in Massachusetts.


MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES
November 18, 2003 by Bill
Filed under Latest News Releases
2003 - November Releases

By a vote of 4-3, the Massachusetts Supreme Court voted today to strike down the state’s ban on homosexual marriage. Though the court said homosexuals were entitled to marry, it stopped short of allowing them to obtain a license to do so. Instead, it gave the state legislature 180 days to find a solution.


Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:


“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.

“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.

Yup...sounds like the same moronic equine excrement being bandied about here. Shameless fear mongering. This ruling did no such thing, anymore than Obergefell and all the others in between.

Lol, time will tell.

And when I'm proven correct?

I'm sure you're going to say. Shit, that guy nailed it!