Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

 

[Faun]

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

The reason this is important is that the speed limit was created and administrated to protect society from great harm.

The reason that opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marriage is to protect society from an even greater social harm.

Yet, what is the great social harm caused by marriage of same sex siblings?

What societal harm was there in the past for a gay man to marry his lesbian sister?

 

[Pop23]

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.

Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?

Find my quote that said that.

Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?

Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?

See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.

Wake up.

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.

I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine.

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.

You didn't post the quote from Judge Crabb multiple times?

Funny, I thought that was you?

 

[Faun]

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

 

[Pop23]

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

The reason this is important is that the speed limit was created and administrated to protect society from great harm.

The reason that opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marriage is to protect society from an even greater social harm.

Yet, what is the great social harm caused by marriage of same sex siblings?

What societal harm was there in the past for a gay man to marry his lesbian sister?

Likely none, but since it didn't need to be addressed because all siblings were prohibited from marriage, and since the government were not discriminating, its a moot point.

 

[Syriusly]

You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.

Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?

Find my quote that said that.

Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?

Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?

See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.

Wake up.

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.

That safeguard now discrimiinates because a safegaurd against to males breeding is not a reasonable reason for exclussion.

Once again.

Glad I could help

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

Once again- the law shows that procreation is not the issue on the prohibition between closely related family members marrying- since infertile siblings cannot marry, but infertile First cousins can.

You are unwilling to address why States allow infertile cousins to marry- but not infertile siblings.

And not surprising- since it kills your argument- well that is rather an abuse of the term 'argument'- it kills your straw man.

 

[Pop23]

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

 

[Skylar]

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

 

[Faun]

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

The reason this is important is that the speed limit was created and administrated to protect society from great harm.

The reason that opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marriage is to protect society from an even greater social harm.

Yet, what is the great social harm caused by marriage of same sex siblings?

What societal harm was there in the past for a gay man to marry his lesbian sister?

Likely none, but since it didn't need to be addressed because all siblings were prohibited from marriage, and since the government were not discriminating, its a moot point.

And all siblings are still prohibited from marriage. Equal justice for all.

 

[Syriusly]

Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?

It depends on which of the 50 state laws you're talking about. In most of them, siblings can't marry because this type of marriage is prohibited by some public decency act, generally passed by Christians with moral values. Most of these public decency acts also include sodomy and homosexual acts but that was ruled unconstitutional in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas)

So basically, any reason that we collectively have to ban sibling marriages has not yet been sustained by SCOTUS. Whenever "moral values" meets "individual liberty" the courts have ruled in favor of individual liberty. You may ask, then why hasn't sibling marriage become legal already? Perhaps the proponents have been waiting for a landmark SCOTUS ruling which redefines the nature of marriage and prohibits discrimination on the basis of tradition and morality?

Another example of Boss- quoting Boss- citing Boss.

Same gender marriage has been legal for 12 years in Massachusetts- on the very same grounds as Obergefel- exactly what bloody shade of green light would all of these siblings wanting to marry be waiting for in Massachusetts?

 

[Faun]

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Pop23]

Find my quote that said that.

Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?

Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?

See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.

Wake up.

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.

That safeguard now discrimiinates because a safegaurd against to males breeding is not a reasonable reason for exclussion.

Once again.

Glad I could help

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

Once again- the law shows that procreation is not the issue on the prohibition between closely related family members marrying- since infertile siblings cannot marry, but infertile First cousins can.

You are unwilling to address why States allow infertile cousins to marry- but not infertile siblings.

And not surprising- since it kills your argument- well that is rather an abuse of the term 'argument'- it kills your straw man.

That actually be clear. The social safety net.

Have you come up with a reason yet as to why same sec cousins will not have to provide proof of fertility?

 

[Pop23]

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving your a racist, bigoted, homophobe, right wing hater dupe wasn't all that hard.

But thanking me is always appreciated.

 

[Faun]

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving your a racist, bigoted, homophobe, right wing hater dupe wasn't all that hard.

But thanking me is always appreciated.

My gratitude was for proving me right, not for proving you right. Dayam, you're too fucking deranged to even comprehend that.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

As this posters question proves.

Because I search for a legal argument to stop same sex sibling marriage, which I oppose, but neither i, nor the other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Wow, open your closed mind conservatard!

 

[Pop23]

You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving your a racist, bigoted, homophobe, right wing hater dupe wasn't all that hard.

But thanking me is always appreciated.

My gratitude was for proving me right, not for proving you right. Dayam, you're too fucking deranged to even comprehend that.

I'm not the one sleeping with someone with my own gender.

You look silly, no matter if your OCD controlled mind fathoms that or not. Of course if it did, you wouldn't be controlled by your OCD.

And that won't happen until you get proper theropy.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving your a racist, bigoted, homophobe, right wing hater dupe wasn't all that hard.

But thanking me is always appreciated.

My gratitude was for proving me right, not for proving you right. Dayam, you're too fucking deranged to even comprehend that.

I'm not the one sleeping with someone with my own gender.

You look silly, no matter if your OCD controlled mind fathoms that or not. Of course if it did, you wouldn't be controlled by your OCD.

And that won't happen until you get proper theropy.

So? Neither am I. The rest of your projection is noted as usual.

 

[Pop23]

^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving your a racist, bigoted, homophobe, right wing hater dupe wasn't all that hard.

But thanking me is always appreciated.

My gratitude was for proving me right, not for proving you right. Dayam, you're too fucking deranged to even comprehend that.

I'm not the one sleeping with someone with my own gender.

You look silly, no matter if your OCD controlled mind fathoms that or not. Of course if it did, you wouldn't be controlled by your OCD.

And that won't happen until you get proper theropy.

So? Neither am I. The rest of your projection is noted as usual.

^^^ her OCD made her say this.

Forgive her, I have

 

[Syriusly]

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal. You must have a reason, yes? Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?

I oppose all family marriage, now present the argument against it. I can't come up with a Compelling State Interest in denial to same sex siblings.

You?

The exact same argument that allows infertile cousins to marry, but not infertile siblings.

You reject any argument that doesn't support your straw man.

No point in pretending like you actually desire an answer- you just want to reject every answer other than the one you have created.

 

[Skylar]

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?

I openly oppose both.

So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?

The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms.

Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'.

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent.

other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic.

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.