Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[martybegan]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Why should the left have to tolerate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Right regarding any laws?

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce, and really doesn't apply because most of these laws are at the state level. The commerce clause is also meant for gross macro economic functions, not a baker and a cake. And again, Americans don't like bullies. keep this up and you will start seeing more and more opposition to using PA laws as a weapon for social change.

 

[Seawytch]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't

You said that with a straight face, didn't you?

Haven't seen your counter example yet, Seawytch keeps whiffing on that too. So do Clayton, Syriusly, Skylar, ...

It has been answered, you just didn't like the answer. The "counter example" is right here...

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

You're making the same argument the racists made back then only replacing gender with race. Mildred loving was preventing from marrying any more than I am. We both could have married men we didn't want to marry. That's what you're saying, right? I can just marry a man, even though I'm not in love with a man and want to marry a woman? You're saying the exact same thing the racists told the Lovings...you can marry, just not each other.

The bigots lost and you will to. Arguments today!

 

[kaz]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't

You said that with a straight face, didn't you?

Haven't seen your counter example yet, Seawytch keeps whiffing on that too. So do Clayton, Syriusly, Skylar, ...

It has been answered, you just didn't like the answer. The "counter example" is right here...

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

You're making the same argument the racists made back then only replacing gender with race. Mildred loving was preventing from marrying any more than I am. We both could have married men we didn't want to marry. That's what you're saying, right? I can just marry a man, even though I'm not in love with a man and want to marry a woman? You're saying the exact same thing the racists told the Lovings...you can marry, just not each other.

The bigots lost and you will to. Arguments today!

Um...you didn't answer the question. Who can gays not marry that straights can? It's pretty simple. Blacks could easily name blacks who could not marry the same people as whites. All of them. For gays it's none of you.

And yes, you not getting your wedding catered by a particular restaurant is like blacks getting shot with water canons and lynched. You mentioned that. I am impressed with the deep love of cake you have though, wow, it's everything to you, isn't it? What if instead of gay government marriage we just give gays free cake?

BTW, I started a thread to mock you for your incredible lack of perspective. Notice 100% of voters agreed with me, you have none. And not one liberal thought Muslim extremism was a bigger threat to America than the lack of availability of government marriage to give gays validation and perks. Here you go

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Seawytch]

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't

You said that with a straight face, didn't you?

Haven't seen your counter example yet, Seawytch keeps whiffing on that too. So do Clayton, Syriusly, Skylar, ...

It has been answered, you just didn't like the answer. The "counter example" is right here...

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

You're making the same argument the racists made back then only replacing gender with race. Mildred loving was preventing from marrying any more than I am. We both could have married men we didn't want to marry. That's what you're saying, right? I can just marry a man, even though I'm not in love with a man and want to marry a woman? You're saying the exact same thing the racists told the Lovings...you can marry, just not each other.

The bigots lost and you will to. Arguments today!

Um...you didn't answer the question. Who can gays not marry that straights can? It's pretty simple. Blacks could easily name blacks who could not marry the same people as whites. All of them. For gays it's none of you.

The argument is exactly like yours...they can still marry, just not who they want to.

And yes, you not getting your wedding catered by a particular restaurant is like blacks getting shot with water canons and lynched. You mentioned that. I am impressed with the deep love of cake you have though, wow, it's everything to you, isn't it? What if instead of gay government marriage we just give gays free cake?

Go read Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You'll note that it is not only race protected by PA laws.

BTW, I started a thread to mock you for your incredible lack of perspective. Notice 100% of voters agreed with me, you have none. And not one liberal thought Muslim extremism was a bigger threat to America than the lack of availability of government marriage to give gays validation and perks. Here you go

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yes, I'm aware of your troll thread. Muslim extremists are not a greater threat here in the United States than bigots trying to take away civil rights from gay people.

In the Middle East, you would have gotten a different result, but here in the United States where a toddler with a gun or just plain old lightning is a greater threat.

 

[kaz]

Um...you didn't answer the question. Who can gays not marry that straights can? It's pretty simple. Blacks could easily name blacks who could not marry the same people as whites. All of them. For gays it's none of you.

The argument is exactly like yours...they can still marry, just not who they want to.

No, that wasn't my argument. I've explained it so many times at this point I have to just conclude you are too stupid to grasp the discussion

Yes, I'm aware of your troll thread. Muslim extremists are not a greater threat here in the United States than bigots trying to take away civil rights from gay people

So how is it a "troll thread" if you are saying straight out you agree with option 2?

And yes, you've mentioned your hysterical fear of gun toting toddlers, life is a scary thing to you. Uh, oh, look behind you. A three year old, and he's armed!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

The difference is that those who do not believe in gay marriage are trying to tell others who they can and cannot marry

You are legally married or you are not

How can a couple be legally married in one state and then be not married as they drive through another state?

 

[danielpalos]

Honestly; only the Right is cognitively dissonant enough to complain about excessive regulation (potentially arising through litigation) and complain about their Income Tax burden at the same time.

If merchants in Commerce want to practice the Art of Religion over the Art of Commerce, it must be done on a not-for Commercial Profit basis; or, to put it in more religious terms; it must be done on a not-for-lucre basis.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Why should the left have to tolerate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Right regarding any laws?

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce, and really doesn't apply because most of these laws are at the state level. The commerce clause is also meant for gross macro economic functions, not a baker and a cake. And again, Americans don't like bullies. keep this up and you will start seeing more and more opposition to using PA laws as a weapon for social change.

Most Americans believe that businesses should serve gays. And most support gay marriage. Its hard to play the victim when what you're defending is naked discrimination. Or to muster much outrage when the 'freedom' you claim to defend is treating someone else like a piece of shit.

 

[martybegan]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Why should the left have to tolerate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Right regarding any laws?

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce, and really doesn't apply because most of these laws are at the state level. The commerce clause is also meant for gross macro economic functions, not a baker and a cake. And again, Americans don't like bullies. keep this up and you will start seeing more and more opposition to using PA laws as a weapon for social change.

Most Americans believe that businesses should serve gays. And most support gay marriage. Its hard to play the victim when what you're defending is naked discrimination. Or to muster much outrage when the 'freedom' you claim to defend is treating someone else like a piece of shit.

Yes, they do, but once you ask them should government fine businesses that don't serve gays, the approval of that drops below 50%. So they want the end result, just not using the method you want to use, i.e. government force.

When these bakers denied service, do you have evidence they did it in a mean way, or rudely? They do not agree with the person's lifestyle, and don't want to participate in their wedding.

It seems you are defining down "treating like a pieces of shit" just like your side has defined down hate, racism, and sexism.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear Persons on the Right, here is our "mission Statement" in civic life:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Skylar]

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Why should the left have to tolerate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Right regarding any laws?

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce, and really doesn't apply because most of these laws are at the state level. The commerce clause is also meant for gross macro economic functions, not a baker and a cake. And again, Americans don't like bullies. keep this up and you will start seeing more and more opposition to using PA laws as a weapon for social change.

Most Americans believe that businesses should serve gays. And most support gay marriage. Its hard to play the victim when what you're defending is naked discrimination. Or to muster much outrage when the 'freedom' you claim to defend is treating someone else like a piece of shit.

Yes, they do, but once you ask them should government fine businesses that don't serve gays, the approval of that drops below 50%. So they want the end result, just not using the method you want to use, i.e. government force.

Americans aren't mobilizing on the distinction. As the bakers are in a very unsympathetic position, blatantly discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Which the public agrees they must not be allowed to do by a 70 to 30 split.

When your 'victim' is defending the 'right' to treat others like shit, you're not going to find significant increases in opposition to them being fined.

When these bakers denied service, do you have evidence they did it in a mean way, or rudely? They do not agree with the person's lifestyle, and don't want to participate in their wedding.

Do you have evidence that what you're asking about is remotely relevant to what we're discussing?

 

[martybegan]

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Why should the left have to tolerate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Right regarding any laws?

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce, and really doesn't apply because most of these laws are at the state level. The commerce clause is also meant for gross macro economic functions, not a baker and a cake. And again, Americans don't like bullies. keep this up and you will start seeing more and more opposition to using PA laws as a weapon for social change.

Most Americans believe that businesses should serve gays. And most support gay marriage. Its hard to play the victim when what you're defending is naked discrimination. Or to muster much outrage when the 'freedom' you claim to defend is treating someone else like a piece of shit.

Yes, they do, but once you ask them should government fine businesses that don't serve gays, the approval of that drops below 50%. So they want the end result, just not using the method you want to use, i.e. government force.

Americans aren't mobilizing on the distinction. As the bakers are in a very unsympathetic position, blatantly discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Which the public agrees they must not be allowed to do by a 70 to 30 split.

When your 'victim' is defending the 'right' to treat others like shit, you're not going to find significant increases in opposition to them being fined.

When these bakers denied service, do you have evidence they did it in a mean way, or rudely? They do not agree with the person's lifestyle, and don't want to participate in their wedding.

Do you have evidence that what you're asking about is remotely relevant to what we're discussing?

and yet the can get crowdfunded to help pay the fine, or cover their costs (until the crowfund site knuckled under to intolerant assholes). And these are the first few cases. Again, Americans hate bullies, and your side is the bully in all this.

YOU were the one that ran to polling in the first place, and now you say, but but but your polling doesn't count because ???????
Not a very strong argument on your part.

And you were the one that said the vendors were treating these people "like a piece of shit" I want proof of it, and not your view that disagreeing with a person's lifestyle and politely refusing to serve them (in one case the photographer even offered recommendations) is treating them poorly.

The fact is you are the one all for treating people poorly, people you disagree with. The problem is you don't have the gumption to do it yourself, you hide behind government doing the sanctions, and wash your hands like Punctious Pilate.

 

[danielpalos]

Just one more reason why we need morals testing companies instead of drug testing companies.

 

[rightwinger]

How can we function with some states having gay marriage and others not?

If a couple is legally married in Massachusetts and travels to Texas to visit with family. What happens if one spouse gets seriously ill and the family denys visitation to the other spouse? What happens when, because they are in Texas, the family makes the health decisions and excludes the spouse?

 

[danielpalos]

How can we function with some states having gay marriage and others not?

If a couple is legally married in Massachusetts and travels to Texas to visit with family. What happens if one spouse gets seriously ill and the family denys visitation to the other spouse? What happens when, because they are in Texas, the family makes the health decisions and excludes the spouse?

Here is what the States ratified at the several State Conventions:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Public Accommodation Laws do NOT serve to defend, support or otherwise PROMOTE DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.

And that IS what we're talking about here... BEHAVIOR. NOT a genetic component relevant to a half or third gender... it is BEHAVIOR.

So stuff you illicit 'interpretation' of Public Accommodation Laws and the same for those of the Judiciary which 'finds' as you find.

You're going to come to find; and I expect sooner rather than later, that the downside to Relativism is that it undermines the means for people to find justice. And when people can't find justice through the judiciary, they get it themselves.

Now you panty-waists are hardly in a position to push people around. And I Know that you 'feel you are, because you feel you have "THE LAW" on your side.

But you're a teeny tiny little minority... right?

And I'm sure you'll agree that blacks are a teeny tiny little minority... although in defense of the blacks, they represent a minority which represents an order of magnitude greater composition then you idiots.

Turn the channel over to MSNBC... and look at what the teeny tiny little minority is doing in Baltimore. LOOK AT HOW BIG THEY ARE!

Now, over the next few days, you're going to see the majority come down on them like a brick through a glass pane... (Pun intended). And you're goin' to see that minority scatter like cockroaches.

Now IMAGINE... if instead of that minority busting up Whiteyville... that it's THE MAJORITY that's marching through BROWNTOWN burning it down and killing everything that runs out of the burning hovel.

Now here's the coolest part... WHOS COMING TO SAVE BROWN TOWN WHEN ITS THE MAJORITY? The Homosexuals? (Order of Magnitude... remember that lesson? ... So probably not, huh?)

Don't poke the bear Fester. Understand?

Where do you come up with your Standards for "deviancy"? Should we apply a Standard of Review of JOB 34:30?

The human sexual standard is, quite simply, the design intrinsic to human physiology. Wherein the human species is designed with two distinct but complimenting genders... Specifically designed to join as one, which is precisely the function of marriage. Physiologically, human the two genders join together, establishing one body. Which is the same thing in the behavioral extension marriage, wherein the two genders join as one entity.

Now with regards to deviancy.

Homosexuality not only deviates from the human physiological standard... It deviates as far from that standard as is humanly possible; a full 180 degrees.

It's not even a debatable point.

 

[martybegan]

How can we function with some states having gay marriage and others not?

If a couple is legally married in Massachusetts and travels to Texas to visit with family. What happens if one spouse gets seriously ill and the family denys visitation to the other spouse? What happens when, because they are in Texas, the family makes the health decisions and excludes the spouse?

One can enforce the rules of a marriage contract without having to force a State to issue one. States vary on age of consent, on first cousin marriage, and on how to issue a license. However once one is issued by any State, all states must recognize them. I would actually prefer if the court ruled that States can't be forced to issue marriage licenses, but they still have to recognize valid ones from other states. its the same as with driver's licences, and it should be the same with CCW permits.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Why should the left have to tolerate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Right regarding any laws?

Specify that which you're labeling arbitrary and capricious. Or concede by default through your failure to do so.

(What the Reader will discover, if the would-be 'contributor' manages to find the courage to try and specify her subject, is that it is she that is being arbitrary and capricious. BANK IT!)

 

[Skylar]

Why should the left have to tolerate the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Right regarding any laws?

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce, and really doesn't apply because most of these laws are at the state level. The commerce clause is also meant for gross macro economic functions, not a baker and a cake. And again, Americans don't like bullies. keep this up and you will start seeing more and more opposition to using PA laws as a weapon for social change.

Most Americans believe that businesses should serve gays. And most support gay marriage. Its hard to play the victim when what you're defending is naked discrimination. Or to muster much outrage when the 'freedom' you claim to defend is treating someone else like a piece of shit.

Yes, they do, but once you ask them should government fine businesses that don't serve gays, the approval of that drops below 50%. So they want the end result, just not using the method you want to use, i.e. government force.

Americans aren't mobilizing on the distinction. As the bakers are in a very unsympathetic position, blatantly discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Which the public agrees they must not be allowed to do by a 70 to 30 split.

When your 'victim' is defending the 'right' to treat others like shit, you're not going to find significant increases in opposition to them being fined.

When these bakers denied service, do you have evidence they did it in a mean way, or rudely? They do not agree with the person's lifestyle, and don't want to participate in their wedding.

Do you have evidence that what you're asking about is remotely relevant to what we're discussing?

and yet the can get crowdfunded to help pay the fine, or cover their costs (until the crowfund site knuckled under to intolerant assholes). And these are the first few cases. Again, Americans hate bullies, and your side is the bully in all this.

Are you honestly using a crowd sourcing campaign as some sort of national straw poll? You have a small minority that are fiercely opposed to gays and gay marriage. But they are a minority that is dwindling as the nation moves toward acceptance of gays at a speed that has stunned pollsters. The lingering anti-gay sentiment is concentrated overwhelmingly in old conservatives.

You're not going to get much sympathy from the public at large for a baker treating their customers like shit based on their sexual orientation. An activity a super majority oppose.

 

[Skylar]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Public Accommodation Laws do NOT serve to defend, support or otherwise PROMOTE DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.

And that IS what we're talking about here... BEHAVIOR. NOT a genetic component relevant to a half or third gender... it is BEHAVIOR.

So stuff you illicit 'interpretation' of Public Accommodation Laws and the same for those of the Judiciary which 'finds' as you find.

You're going to come to find; and I expect sooner rather than later, that the downside to Relativism is that it undermines the means for people to find justice. And when people can't find justice through the judiciary, they get it themselves.

Now you panty-waists are hardly in a position to push people around. And I Know that you 'feel you are, because you feel you have "THE LAW" on your side.

But you're a teeny tiny little minority... right?

And I'm sure you'll agree that blacks are a teeny tiny little minority... although in defense of the blacks, they represent a minority which represents an order of magnitude greater composition then you idiots.

Turn the channel over to MSNBC... and look at what the teeny tiny little minority is doing in Baltimore. LOOK AT HOW BIG THEY ARE!

Now, over the next few days, you're going to see the majority come down on them like a brick through a glass pane... (Pun intended). And you're goin' to see that minority scatter like cockroaches.

Now IMAGINE... if instead of that minority busting up Whiteyville... that it's THE MAJORITY that's marching through BROWNTOWN burning it down and killing everything that runs out of the burning hovel.

Now here's the coolest part... WHOS COMING TO SAVE BROWN TOWN WHEN ITS THE MAJORITY? The Homosexuals? (Order of Magnitude... remember that lesson? ... So probably not, huh?)

Don't poke the bear Fester. Understand?

Where do you come up with your Standards for "deviancy"? Should we apply a Standard of Review of JOB 34:30?

The human sexual standard is, quite simply, the design intrinsic to human physiology.

Fucking isn't marriage. You keep trying to equate the two. And you keep failing.

There's nothing 'intrinsic' to marriage. It is whatever we say it is, as we invented it. A simple axiom that obliterates your entire basis of argument.