"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, the simple truth is that the world is presently experiencing a rise of the same Evil that you read about in the Old Testament Scriptures. We're talking Sodom and Gomorra, deep and dark... utter destruction.

And is truly all one really needs to know about it, to know what should be done about it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there.

Oh that is SO true.

Of course, there is also nothing in there about licensing degeneracy by divining a fundamental right to marriage... . Yet you claim that such is the basis for licensing degeneracy in Obergefell.

And this despite Windsor stating in unambiguous terms that standards of behavior, this the standards regarding marriage was a fundamental issue which are regulated by the respective states.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence... such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.

 

[Skylar]

Reader, the simple truth is that the world is presently experiencing a rise of the same Evil that you read about in the Old Testament Scriptures. We're talking Sodom and Gomorra, deep and dark... utter destruction.

And is truly all one really needs to know about it, to know what should be done about it.

And what, pray tell, should be done about it?

Is this where you start in with your insane murder fantasies and the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'? C'mon Keyes...if you can't even TALK about who you want to murder and why, you're gonna have a hard time convincing people to actually murder them.

 

[Skylar]

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there.

Oh that is SO true.

Of course, there is also nothing in there about licensing degeneracy by divining a fundamental right to marriage... . Yet you claim that such is the basis for licensing degeneracy in Obergefell.

And this despite Windsor stating in unambiguous terms that standards of behavior, this the standards regarding marriage was a fundamental issue which are regulated by the respective states.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence... such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.

Wow. And you're still spamming. I just completely broke you with my quotes from the Windsor and Obergefell rulings.

Windsor still puts constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. Obergefell still recognizes the right to marry. Closing your eyes doesn't change that. And just because you ignore these facts doesn't mean you can make us ignore them.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've quoted Obergefell recognizing the right to marry

The Right to marry is predicated upon the conditions of Marriage wherein Nature designed Marriage as The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

I've quoted Windsor recognizing that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Did ya?

In Windsor the Court found DOMA to offend the Constitution because it represented an "unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage..." (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693).

The Court stated, "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States" (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2689-90).

Thus the newly formed Supreme Legislature turned from its recent finding in Windsor to divine a federal right to marry, thus licensing degeneracy and in the process rendering Marriage effectively MEANINGLESS.

Which is purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Degeneracy.

As the goal of the Advocacy is to make possible for the Degenerates, the legal means to pursue children for sexual gratification.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals.

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance.

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).

 

[Skylar]

I've quoted Obergefell recognizing the right to marry

The Right to marry is predicated upon the conditions of Marriage wherein Nature designed Marriage as The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Says you, pretending that you are both nature, the USSC, and the law. But you're none of these things. Rendering your claims a mere declaration of empty personal opinion.

And poorly informed opinion at that. As marriage doesn't exist anywhere but within human societies. No where else in nature has it. We invented it, not 'nature'. And it is what we say it is. Every culture defines marriage in a manner that is consistent with their values. And we do as well, including same sex couples as their inclusion is consistent with our values.

As marriage is our invention and we define it.....it now includes same sex couples. Get used to the idea.

Did ya?

In Windsor the Court found DOMA to offend the Constitution because it represented an "unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage..." (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693).

The Court stated, "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States" (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2689-90).

Yup. I did. As again, you omit any mention of constitutional guarantees, prtending that they don't exist. Despite the fact that Windsor explicitly found that state marriage laws are subject constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

You can pretend that constitutional guarentees don't exist. You can ignore any mention of them in the WIndsor ruling. But you can't make the actual constitutional guaratnees disappear. Nor can you make the court ignore them.

This, right here, is why your predictions about how the Obergefell ruling was going to go down were so wildly incompetent and so completely wrong: you ignored anything in the Windsor ruling that you didn't like. You even ignored the very concept of constitutional guarantees. ANd then laughably concluded that since you ignored them, the Courts were obligated to do the same.

I ask again....how'd that work out for you?

Thus the newly formed Supreme Legislature turned from its recent finding in Windsor to divine a federal right to marry, thus licensing degeneracy and in the process rendering Marriage effectively MEANINGLESS.

On the contrary, the Obergefell court placed constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. Exactly as the said in Windsor. In fact, the position of the courts on the issue was so ludicriously clear that Scalia predicted the Obergefell ruling based on the WIndsor ruling:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion

'Beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. It was obvious what the court prioritized and how they were going to rule. Even Scalia could tell.

But you thought you knew better. You thought you knew what the court 'really meant', and insisted that the Obergefell ruling was going to overturn same sex marriage.

You were laughably wrong. As your willful ignorance doesn't limit the court in any way. And just because you ignored constitutional guarantees and individual rights doesn't mean the court's were similarly obligated.

The inept dismissal of anything you don't want to believe is at the heart of why you fail over and over and over again. And I'm almost certain she's told you the exact same thing. Just before she gave you divorce papers.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you...

And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And Marriage remains: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals.

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance.

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).

 

[rcfieldz]

Repent!

 

[Skylar]

Says you...

And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And the tell. I called it. First comes the spamming, then the random declarations of victory. Then the inevitable rout.

Do you ever get tired of running from me? Because I'll be honest, I haven't gotten tired of watching you run.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you...

And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And the tell...

OH! A Re-Concession... how marvelous.

Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

Says you...

And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And the tell...

OH! A Re-Concession... how marvelous.

Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Spamming your tell. Next comes the rout.

As those Windsor quotes just shut you down. Scalia's dissent just shut you down. What can you do but pretend that there are no constitutional guarantees, that Windsor never mentions them and that Scalia didn't see Obergefell coming based on the Windsor ruling?

Nothing. Which is why you always end up running.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Spamming your tell. Next comes the rout... .

OH! A Re-Re-Concession... how sweet.

Your Re-Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

Spamming your tell. Next comes the rout... .

OH! A Re-Re-Concession... how sweet.

Your Re-Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And still....you won't even quote me quoting the Windsor ruling placing constitutional guarantees above state laws. Let alone admit the passage exists in the Windsor ruling.

Sigh.....how'd ignoring the Windsor ruling work out for you again?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals.

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance.

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).

 

[Pop23]

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other.

Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. There is none.

You hallucinated it. And then insist that 'the left' is responsible for your hallucination.

Laughing...nope. Quote the left supporting incestuous marriage.....or admit you made the whole thing up.

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there. Lets try the Obergefell ruling:

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

And exactly as I said, there's no mention in either. You've literally hallucinated it into both rulings. Then insisted that the left is responsible for your hallucination.

Smiling....nope.

So I ask again, can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? This is the third time I've asked this question. And you've given us nothing but excuses why you can't. The reason is pretty obvious: you made it up.

I noted that you left out the link to the Loving ruling that mentioned same sex

So, have you come up with the compelling difference between a lasbian couple and a straight same sex sister couple yet?

You are simply acting naive

This is the legal ramifications that the USSC left open.

Can't answer you simply declare defeat.

Sorry dude, your omission simply means you can't answer in a way to destroy my theory

But troll on, it's what you do best

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman

You've already posted this in its entirety. And I already dismantled it with better reasoning and better sources. You're spamming the same post over and over again while ignoring any reply.

That doesn't bode well for your argument. As it requires you ignore anything that contradicts you....and pretend no contradiction exists.

How'd that work for you with the Windsor ruling? Did ignoring Constitutional guaratenees mean that the court had to ignore them too? Or did it just mean that you were comically wrong in predicting their ruling?

 

[Skylar]

So, have you come up with the compelling difference between a lasbian couple and a straight same sex sister couple yet?

Have you come up with any mention of 'incest marriage' in either WIndsor or Obergefell? Or the court quoting Windsor or Obergefell in any ruling supporting incestuous marriage?

No? Nothing like that at all? Kinda puts a kink in your legal argument, dontcha think?

Remember, your basing your entire argument on you predicting how the courts will interpret precedent. But we've already put your ability to predict the court's use of predict to the test with the Obergefell ruling. You told us how the courts were going to rule against same sex marriage and you told us why. You insisted that the Loving decision was irrelevant to ruling and had no legal relevance.

And you were dead wrong. On every point. Your every prediction on how the courts would rule or apply precedent was comically incompetent and inept. Yet here you are.....basing your entire argument on your demonstrably inept capacity to predict how the courts will rule on precedent.

Can you see why your argument might be a little...underwhelming?

You are simply acting naive

I don't think 'naive' means what you think it means. As you've been perfectly wrong in predicting court rulings. Naive would be taking any of your new predictions seriously.

Which I don't.

 

[Pop23]

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

 

[Pop23]

So, have you come up with the compelling difference between a lasbian couple and a straight same sex sister couple yet?

Have you come up with any mention of 'incest marriage' in either WIndsor or Obergefell? Or the court quoting Windsor or Obergefell in any ruling supporting incestuous marriage?

No? Nothing like that at all? Kinda puts a kink in your legal argument, dontcha think?

Remember, your basing your entire argument on you predicting how the courts will interpret precedent. But we've already put your ability to predict the court's use of predict to the test with the Obergefell ruling. You told us how the courts were going to rule against same sex marriage and you told us why. You insisted that the Loving decision was irrelevant to ruling and had no legal relevance.

And you were dead wrong. On every point. Your every prediction on how the courts would rule or apply precedent was comically incompetent and inept. Yet here you are.....basing your entire argument on your demonstrably inept capacity to predict how the courts will rule on precedent.

Can you see why your argument might be a little...underwhelming?

Skylar is now reduced to a troll, and actually, by being unable to answer the question, a bigot.