Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

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.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

No I didi'nt. and crying just makes you look sad.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

 

[Faun]

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

Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts. How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?

 

[Pop23]

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.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

 

[Pop23]

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

Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts. How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?

Doubt that, but you think of yourself anyway your OCD a makes you think.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it.

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings.

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues.

Thanks

Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?

Do you ever think?

Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights.

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,

 

[Faun]

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

Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts. How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?

Doubt that, but you think of yourself anyway your OCD a makes you think.

Thanks again for proving me right.

 

[Pop23]

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

Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts. How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?

Doubt that, but you think of yourself anyway your OCD a makes you think.

Thanks again for proving me right.

Thanks again for proving my point.

 

[Pop23]

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

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigot also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.

Pop wants to call me a bigot for telling him how a judge- who was ruling on gay marriage- pointed out that gay marriage is nothing like incestuous marriage- and the reasons why.

Poor Pop- no one wants to dance with his Straw Man.

Strawman, the question was not what a judge thought, but what the compelling state interest that judge would have to deny a Constitutional Right, applying the strict scrutiny rule, to a good, law abiding, tax paying citizen.

She expressed a very low bar, that being that a possibility exists. Not very strictly scrutinized now is it, and it is exactly the same argument that segregationists used to deny blacks their civil rights.

Again- that is your opinion- again- citing you.

You asked what compelling argument a State could make- Judge Crabb indicated exactly not only how same gender marriage is not the same as incestuous marriage- Judge Crabb told the State what she would consider to be compelling arguments against incestuous marriage.

You don't have to convince me you have the right to marry your sibling- you need to convince a court.
Go for it- so far I have provided a judge that says your argument doesn't cut it- but you can file your test case tomorrow if you want.

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

Oh my my, two references to the social safety net, in a Syriously post.

Well, well lil dude

 

[Faun]

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

^^^ her OCD made her say this.

Forgive her, I have

Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts. How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?

Doubt that, but you think of yourself anyway your OCD a makes you think.

Thanks again for proving me right.

Thanks again for proving my point.

And now pops is reduced to squawking like a mindless parrot.

Pretty much sums up how dead his argument is.

 

[Pop23]

^^^ her OCD made her say this.

Forgive her, I have

Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts. How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?

Doubt that, but you think of yourself anyway your OCD a makes you think.

Thanks again for proving me right.

Thanks again for proving my point.

And now pops is reduced to squawking like a mindless parrot.

Pretty much sums up how dead his argument is.

Again the Faux progressive shows its all an act, but that's what hater dupes do!

 

[Skylar]

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

Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts. How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?

Laughing.....you keep saying this like Pop has any intention of actually discussing the topic of this thread. He's merely trolling.

Try trolling the trolls. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it.

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings.

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues.

Thanks

Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?

Do you ever think?

Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights.

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

 

[Syriusly]

^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"

Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigot also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.

Pop wants to call me a bigot for telling him how a judge- who was ruling on gay marriage- pointed out that gay marriage is nothing like incestuous marriage- and the reasons why.

Poor Pop- no one wants to dance with his Straw Man.

Strawman, the question was not what a judge thought, but what the compelling state interest that judge would have to deny a Constitutional Right, applying the strict scrutiny rule, to a good, law abiding, tax paying citizen.

She expressed a very low bar, that being that a possibility exists. Not very strictly scrutinized now is it, and it is exactly the same argument that segregationists used to deny blacks their civil rights.

Again- that is your opinion- again- citing you.

You asked what compelling argument a State could make- Judge Crabb indicated exactly not only how same gender marriage is not the same as incestuous marriage- Judge Crabb told the State what she would consider to be compelling arguments against incestuous marriage.

You don't have to convince me you have the right to marry your sibling- you need to convince a court.
Go for it- so far I have provided a judge that says your argument doesn't cut it- but you can file your test case tomorrow if you want.

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

Oh my my, two references to the social safety net, in a Syriously post.

Well, well lil dude

Thanks again for giving me an opportunity to provide Judge Crabb's opinion:

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

An opinion of someone who would be deciding if you have the right to marry your sister. And Judge Crabb tells you the reason why the State has justifications to prevent you from marrying your sister.

 

[Syriusly]

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.
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.

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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

 

[Skylar]

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.

 

[Montrovant]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

 

[Pop23]

Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it.

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings.

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues.

Thanks

Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?

Do you ever think?

Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights.

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I see you don't like testing your theory, so it's back to, cuz You say so......

I quite expected that

 

[Pop23]

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.

Incest is a crime.

I think I've pointed that out before.

Nonetheless, incest is defined as vaginal penetration in Maryland. So it appears that same sex make siblings would not be included as incestuous.

 

[Syriusly]

Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?

Do you ever think?

Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights.

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I see you don't like testing your theory, so it's back to, cuz You say so......

I quite expected that

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

 

[Pop23]

I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made.

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem.

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this.

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.

Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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.”

I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit.

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

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

Have I quoted from that?

Nope, not once

But of course, if you're OCD like Syriously is, these things just pop up in your head.