"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[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?

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

I've asked you to make your case for why you want incestuous marriage. I've also asked you to quote any democrat supporting incestuous marriage, as you claimed they have.

You refuse to do the first. And you quote YOURSELF on the second. Um, you citing you isn't quoting a democrat.

You get that right? So show us the left is supporting incestuous marriage. Neither the Windsor ruling nor the Obergefell ruling even mention it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Make your argument for why you want incestuous marriage. But you keep insisting we refute an argument you're not even making.

That's silly. If your argument for incestuous marriage has merit.......you could make the case for it. But you refuse.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Three weeks after the US Federal Government Licenses DEGENERACY:

"Statue paying homage to Satan to be unveiled in Detroit"

DETROIT, MI (WNEM) -

The Satanic Temple Detroit Chapter is getting ready to unveil a controversial sculpture in Detroit.

A bronze Baphomet monument will be revealed on Saturday, July 25 at Berts Warehouse Entertainment.

The one ton, 9-foot tall monument reportedly pays homage to Satan.

The Satanic Temple said the statue is “intended to complement and contrast the Ten Commandments monument that already resides on Oklahoma State Capitol grounds.”

The Temple also said the event will “serve as a call-to-arms” to kick off a fight “in the name of individual rights to exercise against self-serving theocrats.”

It shouldn't be long now... .

 

[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.

I've asked you to make your case for why you want incestuous marriage. I've also asked you to quote any democrat supporting incestuous marriage, as you claimed they have.

You refuse to do the first. And you quote YOURSELF on the second. Um, you citing you isn't quoting a democrat.

You get that right? So show us the left is supporting incestuous marriage. Neither the Windsor ruling nor the Obergefell ruling even mention it.

Poor dear shit for brains Skylar.

Google the word RAMIFICATIONS.

The left contend that one of "Lovings" RAMIFICATIONS was that it opened the path to same sex marriage.

Post any link to the "loving" decision that uses the words GAY MARRIAGE, or SAME SEX MARRIAGE within the decision.

Then get this, I contend, and if you can't post the requested link, I am correct in doing so, that a ramification of the recent USSC ruling is an open door to incestuous marriage.

See how easy that was when you have a brain?

 

[Skylar]

Three weeks after the US Federal Government Licenses DEGENERACY:

"Statue paying homage to Satan to be unveiled in Detroit"

DETROIT, MI (WNEM) -

The Satanic Temple Detroit Chapter is getting ready to unveil a controversial sculpture in Detroit.

A bronze Baphomet monument will be revealed on Saturday, July 25 at Berts Warehouse Entertainment.

The one ton, 9-foot tall monument reportedly pays homage to Satan.

The Satanic Temple said the statue is “intended to complement and contrast the Ten Commandments monument that already resides on Oklahoma State Capitol grounds.”

The Temple also said the event will “serve as a call-to-arms” to kick off a fight “in the name of individual rights to exercise against self-serving theocrats.”

It shouldn't be long now... .

ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?

Or harm you personally? For all of your murder fantasies, the 'moral justification' you've offered for them don't actually involve harm to you in any way.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

"Troll" is what Skylar IS. It's all it does.

But hey... such is the nature of Evil...

 

[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?

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

I've asked you to make your case for why you want incestuous marriage. I've also asked you to quote any democrat supporting incestuous marriage, as you claimed they have.

You refuse to do the first. And you quote YOURSELF on the second. Um, you citing you isn't quoting a democrat.

You get that right? So show us the left is supporting incestuous marriage. Neither the Windsor ruling nor the Obergefell ruling even mention it.

Poor dear shit for brains Skylar.

Google the word RAMIFICATIONS.

Ramifications, huh? Gay marriage has been legal in this country for up to 10 years, depending on location. Yet absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever happened.

How do reconcile all the things you insist must happen as a consequence of same sex marriage.....with the fact that none of them ever have?

Its been 10 years, and still nothing. Jack shit.

Its almost as if you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. As the record of failure of your legal predictions is absolutely perfect. What would the ramifications of your perfect record of failure in predicting anything be on anyone giving a shit about your predictions?

If your curious, I can give you a hint.

 

[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?

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

"Troll" is what Skylar IS. It's all it does.

But hey... such is the nature of Evil...

I just ask you both the questions you can't possibly answer. Like why when you've both been laughably, comically, incompetently wrong in your legal predictions....would anyone take your pseudo-legal gibberish seriously?

As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

While I predicted the Obergefell ruling down to some of the smallest details. And you got every part of it wrong. How do you explain this inconsistency with what you believe will happen being utterly different from what actually does?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Without the safeguard of 1 man to 1 woman, denying entry, WITHOUT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST is impossible.

You knew that, but your side needed it hush hush, until the ruling came down.

So Skylar, what is the COMPLELLING STATE INTEREST to deny these sisters from their rights to marry, NOW THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND?

Birth defects.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Without the safeguard of 1 man to 1 woman, denying entry, WITHOUT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST is impossible.

You knew that, but your side needed it hush hush, until the ruling came down.

So Skylar, what is the COMPLELLING STATE INTEREST to deny these sisters from their rights to marry, NOW THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND?

Birth defects.

So... does Birth Defects caused by foolish behavior trump, AIDS contracted through foolish behavior??

IF so, how so?

If not, why not.

Also... wouldn't a woman have a RIGHT to impart Birth Defects upon her unborn child, given the precedent set by your cult, wherein a woman has a right to kill her unborn child...

SOooo... how does that factor in to the crumbling credibility of your feckless assertion?

Just wonderin'?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Without the safeguard of 1 man to 1 woman, denying entry, WITHOUT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST is impossible.

You knew that, but your side needed it hush hush, until the ruling came down.

So Skylar, what is the COMPLELLING STATE INTEREST to deny these sisters from their rights to marry, NOW THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND?

Birth defects.

So... does Birth Defects trump AIDS?

IF so, how so?

If not, why not.

Lesbians have one of the lowest AIDS rates in the nation. Lower than gay men, straight men, or straight women.

So.....you don't oppose lesbian marriage?

Or is this just another pseudo-standard that you'll wipe your ass with the moment its inconvenient.

 

[Faun]

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.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.... except for the rationalizations advanced by evil... which is the energy that Satan represents.

Ya see scamp, the Statue at issue symbolizes Satan, the utter personification of ... your 'lifestyle'.

Does that help?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Lesbians have one of the lowest AIDS rates in the nation.

So what?

 

[Skylar]

ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.... except for the rationalizations advanced by evil... which is the energy that Satan represents.

Or, you're assuming that your subjective opinion is objective truth. As you always do. And same sex marriage has nothing to do with your assumptions. As your assumptions have no objective value.

Is there ever an argument you make that isn't you citing yourself as god, or satan, or nature, or whatever Appeal to Authority fallacy you're leaning on in that paragraph?

Because you insisting that you speak for god really doesn't have much in terms of persuasive power.

 

[Skylar]

Lesbians have one of the lowest AIDS rates in the nation.

So what?

So AIDS has nothing to do with your opposition to same sex marriage. Making any mention of it a bullshit proxy that even you don't believe.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Lesbians have one of the lowest AIDS rates in the nation.

So what?

So AIDS has nothing to do with your opposition to same sex marriage

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Or, you're assuming...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

OH! So we can therefore extrapolate that any contest that you might present against Adult/Child sexual relationships... would be limited to legalities.

Now Reader... we have just seen that DECLARED SATANISTS: DEVOUT PURVEYORS OF EVIL... are now feeling sufficiently confident to ERECT STATUES OF THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL IN YOUR PUBLIC SPACES.

Now we find that the vaunted "GAYS"... have come to profess that the ONLY REASON THAT THEY FIND PREVENTING AN ADULT FROM HAVING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILD... IS THAT IT IS ILLEGAL!

Is "THE PROBLEM" becoming MORE CLEAR?

 

[Skylar]

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

OH! So we can therefore extrapolate that any contest that you might present against Adult/Child sexual relationships... would be limited to legalities.

Or, you could read what he's responding to: why incestuous marriage isn't legal. Not why Adult/Child sexual relationship are illegal.

But that would might cut in to your capslock hysterics about Satan and 'purveyors of evil'. So I can understand why you're completely ignoring the conversation you're responding to.[/QUOTE]