"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Skylar]

Or, you're assuming...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And your tell. Keyes, if nothing to offer but your white flag, why even respond?

Your argument is the same as it always is: that your subjective opinion is 'objective truth'. You're a one trick pony. Its your every argument for any discussion. Which is why your arguments always devolve (usually within a few sentences of their beginning) into you citing yourself as god, or satan or nature or the constitution, or the dictionary or whatever Appeal to Authority fallacy your argument needs.

Subjective is not objective. We both know this. Which is why instead of trying to shore up your failed arguments.......you run.

Shrugs....keep running.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Or, you're assuming...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And your

HEY! Another Re-concession!

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

 

[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

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Huh? Dude, are you even reading what you're replying to? Or is just random at this point?

 

[Skylar]

Or, you're assuming...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And your

HEY! Another Re-concession!

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

Laughing.....and I've broken you again. Where all you can do is abandon your every argument while spamming at random.

Is there any topic I can't run you off of?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Laughing..

WOW~ The Re-re-Concession?

Love it...

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

 

[Skylar]

Or, you're assuming...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And your

HEY! Another Re-concession!

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

Laughing.....and I've broken you again. Where all you can do is abandon your every argument while spamming at random.

Is there any topic I can't run you off of?

WOW~ The Re-re-Concession?

Love it...

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

Wow...you're still running. You've still completely abandoned your every argument. And you've still been reduced to spamming.

Your babble about Windsor and Obergefell...abandoned.

Your babble about what constitutes a marriage.....abandoned.

Your babble about AIDS rates.....abandoned.

Do you ever get tired of having to abandon your claims and running? Because I'll have to admit....I still haven't gotten tired of making you run.

 

[Syriusly]

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.
t

According to you.

Not according to any judge.

Matter of fact- a judge has said specifically that is not the case.

But you ignore her- right?

Pop just dances around.

He can't come up with a reason why he is against sibling marriage except procreation- but he is also against sibling marriage if the siblings are infertile.

Which means he really has no reason- he is just 'agin' it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That is one subset of the group of people who can marry.

And by the way- slavery is no longer legal either.

 

[Skylar]

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.
t

According to you.

Not according to any judge.

Matter of fact- a judge has said specifically that is not the case.

But you ignore her- right?

Pop just dances around.

He can't come up with a reason why he is against sibling marriage except procreation- but he is also against sibling marriage if the siblings are infertile.

Which means he really has no reason- he is just 'agin' it.

Well that's just it. Pop's isn't a legal argument. Its an emotional one. As no matter what the courts say, Pop ignores them and replaces their judgment with his own. Then laughably concludes that the courts are bound to whatever gibberish Pop has assigned them.

Um, no. They're not. Not one of Pop's pseudo-legal conclusions have ever been affirmed by any court. Not in the 10 years where the US has incrementally embraced same sex marriage. Nothing Pop has predicted has happened.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I have 'proven it' to you repeatedly- you just don't accept any 'proof' that knocks down your house of cards.
From Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:

In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

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

That you cannot accept a judge's rational is frankly your problem- not mine. Because a judge is the one that plaintiffs would have to convince- and unlike you- the judge actually has a rational argument that stands on its own.

 

[Syriusly]

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?
t

What is the compelling difference between allowing a sterile first cousin couple to marry- but not allowing a sterile sibling couple to marry?

I have asked this before. Wisconsin allows sterile first cousins to marry- but not sterile siblings.

Clearly Wisconsin is only concerned about birth defects when it bans the marriage of fertile first cousins but not infertile first cousins.

But Wisconsin does not allow the marriage of infertile brother/sister couples- which demonstrates to a rational person that Wisconsin has another reason besides procreation for banning sibling marriage.

I look forward to your Ginger Roger act as you dance away in your high heels avoiding addressing the question.

 

[XploreR]

I guess you have to decide whether America represents a place where the words of the Declaration of Independence offering the right of every individual in their own "pursuit of happiness," is an empty concept or an actuality. If another person's gay marriage bothers you, then you don't really support the concept of America as a place guaranteeing individual rights. No one's "pursuit of happiness" in their own personal life, especially one as personal and private as marriage to a lover, should ever be a concern for anyone outside that relationship. I believe in the Declaration of Independence's descriptor of an American, and try hard to live up to its ideals personally. Yes, marriage is a religious institution, but it is also a legal one, and as a legal one, affects the human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Since I believe every person has a natural right to pursue his or her own inner joy, I support gay marriage equally with hetero-marriage. Whatever actions spread personal freedoms in this country or elsewhere is always a good idea.

 

[Politico]

No they don't Get your gay on and stop insisting everyone agree with you.

Seeing as how virtually every poll disagrees with you, what proof do you have that most Americans are against legalizing gay marriage .... ?

And why on Earth would I "get my gay on?" I'm not gay.

No one cares about gay marriage.

So prove it. You're even nuttier than you appear if you think I just take your word for it.

My word lol. Turn on CNN.

Why on Earth would I go hunting for your proof??

Either you could have proven your obviously fallacious claim or you can't. That you expect me to look for it means you can't; otherwise, you would have.

Yet more evidence that most people are in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Claim? I have made no claim you fucking Millennial. Don't hunt for whatever you want. Maybe your local Chipolte holds the answer.

 

[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.

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.

Your an annoying troll

How many years between "loving" and the first gay marriage?

See how ramifications work dummy?

 

[Pop23]

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.

How will two same sex siblings produce a child with birth defects?

Or are you saying that one class of citizens can be denied a right based on another classes ability to procreate?

That is the exact argument that was overturned by the recent Supreme Court ruling.

If that IS A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST, then states can ban all same sex marriage.

 

[Pop23]

I guess you have to decide whether America represents a place where the words of the Declaration of Independence offering the right of every individual in their own "pursuit of happiness," is an empty concept or an actuality. If another person's gay marriage bothers you, then you don't really support the concept of America as a place guaranteeing individual rights. No one's "pursuit of happiness" in their own personal life, especially one as personal and private as marriage to a lover, should ever be a concern for anyone outside that relationship. I believe in the Declaration of Independence's descriptor of an American, and try hard to live up to its ideals personally. Yes, marriage is a religious institution, but it is also a legal one, and as a legal one, affects the human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Since I believe every person has a natural right to pursue his or her own inner joy, I support gay marriage equally with hetero-marriage. Whatever actions spread personal freedoms in this country or elsewhere is always a good idea.

You would agree that a pursuit of happiness has its limitations. Without that we have chaos.

 

[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.

"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?

I predicted it correctly although I fought it.

Because it passed however, does not make it good.

 

[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. 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.

I have 'proven it' to you repeatedly- you just don't accept any 'proof' that knocks down your house of cards.
From Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:

In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

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

That you cannot accept a judge's rational is frankly your problem- not mine. Because a judge is the one that plaintiffs would have to convince- and unlike you- the judge actually has a rational argument that stands on its own.

So we can ban one class of individuals right to marriage because another classes reproductive abilities.

Is that your stand, it appears to be your judges?

So name the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and a same sex sibling couple seeking the financial benefits afforded by marriage?

If you can't, you have proven both yourself and the judge wrong.

You did once by claiming that the same sex sisters could be denied INCLUSSION because a completely different class of citizens, opposite sex sibling may procreate.

You can run from your dumbfuckery, but not for long.

 

[Pop23]

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.
t

According to you.

Not according to any judge.

Matter of fact- a judge has said specifically that is not the case.

But you ignore her- right?

Pop just dances around.

He can't come up with a reason why he is against sibling marriage except procreation- but he is also against sibling marriage if the siblings are infertile.

Which means he really has no reason- he is just 'agin' it.

Since dumbfucks have to have pictures painted for them:

Prior to same sex marriage being legalized the law was clear and the reasoning for a ban on same sex siblings from marrying was based on good policy, that being siblings would produce a corrupt blood line.

One Man could marry One Woman as long as they were not blood related because two siblings (because marriage was always opposite sex) could create corrupt bloodlines.

Now,

One man can marry one woman
One man can marry one man
One woman can marry one woman

Of the above three eligible partnerships:

One male sibling marrying one female sibling could produce a corrupt bloodline.

Two male siblings cannot produce a corrupt bloodline

Two female siblings cannot produce a corrupt bloodline.

What is in the STATES COMPELLING interest to deny all three distinctly different classes from INCLUSSION in the right to marry when only one of those classes can possibly produce an offspring with a corrupt bloodline?

Proceed with your argument that it would be strong legal reasoning that you must ban only the one class as good public policy.

You then argue that you can LEGALLY BAN groups based on reproductive ability, when there is no reproductive ability of the group simply because a distinctively different group can.

It does appear that the ruling indeed did have far reaching effects. Readi it and weep dude:

Link

Gay incest legal in Iowa The Iowa Republican

Send this to the judge you keep referencing in your spam posts.

 

[Pop23]

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?
t

What is the compelling difference between allowing a sterile first cousin couple to marry- but not allowing a sterile sibling couple to marry?

I have asked this before. Wisconsin allows sterile first cousins to marry- but not sterile siblings.

Clearly Wisconsin is only concerned about birth defects when it bans the marriage of fertile first cousins but not infertile first cousins.

But Wisconsin does not allow the marriage of infertile brother/sister couples- which demonstrates to a rational person that Wisconsin has another reason besides procreation for banning sibling marriage.

I look forward to your Ginger Roger act as you dance away in your high heels avoiding addressing the question.

Your point does not help you

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, eligible partners were Male - Female. Sterility mattered. A fertile sibling couple could produce a corrupt bloodline.

After, same sex couples are now eligible.

No same sex couple, fertile or not, related or unreated, have ever produced an offspring with or without s corrupt bloodline.

I will ask you once again this simple question:

What is the remarkable difference between a same sex unrelated couple, seeking the protection and financial benefits of marriage, and a same sex couple of siblings seeking the protection and financial benefits of marriage?