"Equal Protection Under the Law" for Sex with Pubescent Preteens, Multiple Wives, Sex with Animals?

[Freewill]

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.

Like this one from my states (Virginia):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
​

The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.


I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.


>>>>

You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also

Deflection.

1. It was the owner that quoted Leviticus when he referred to the couple as an abomination. Maybe you should right a letter to Aaron Klein and explain the difference.

2. Deflection from the post I responded to. It was Social Conservatives that fought against and banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

The Leviticus law condemning homosexuality is valid, it's a moral law, not ceremonial or dietary law and the New Covenant didn't void it

Perhaps you should comment on topics you are knowledgeable about?

Yammean like bogus Thomas Jefferson quotes you get from Googly Images and then post without bothering to find out if they're real?

Like this one better?

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."1

 

[Pop23]

Liberals are outraged that some localities are refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's new Dred Scott ruling, i.e., its ruling on gay marriage. They scream "equal protection under the law."

But, what a minute! How about "equal protection under the law" for men whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with consenting pubescent preteens? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with animals? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have multiple wives purely for sexual enjoyment and not for any religious purposes?

"But those things are all illegal," say liberals. So what: Just make them legal. Homosexuality used to be illegal too, until 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that it should now be legal. So just pass new laws or get the Supreme Court to legalize sex with consenting pubescent preteens, beastiality, and polygamy. If one perversion can be legalized, other perversions should be legalized. It is discriminatory and unfair to allow homosexuals to love and marry but to deny this "fundamental right" to adults and pubescent pubescent who merely want to love and marry each other, to adults and animals who merely want to love and marry each other, and to men and multiple women who merely want to love and marry.

"But preteen girls can't give proper consent, nor can animals." First off, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. So that argument is a non-starter. Second, animals can give their consent in their own way; animals can make it clear that they love their human lover and have no desire to leave. So just change the law to allow animals to consent in their own way. After all, "society has no right to dictate who a person can and can't love or marry, and has no right to judge one type of love to be better or worse than another."

"But the Supreme Court has ruled that polygamy is unconstitutional." So just get the current Supreme Court to overrule that decision, just like you did in 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that somehow all state laws against homosexuality were suddenly "unconstitutional."

Some animal lovers and polygamists have already filed lawsuits to be allowed "equal protection under the law." In Europe some liberals have been trying for years to weaken or abolish laws against adult-child sexual relationships between adults and consenting pubescent children. Indeed, some of the scientists who have peddled the "gays are born gay" myth also claim that pedophiles are "born that way" too. It's high time that liberals in America get with their progressive brethren in Europe and push for equal protection for adults and pubescent children who only want to love and marry each other.

It is a well established legal fact that children do not equate to adults on issues of rights.

If that were not so it would be unconstitutional to prevent a 5 year old from legally owning a handgun.

Mmmm, although I agree there is enough law protecting children fro marriage. Some children have been allowed to declare independence and sign contracts. Those contracts CAN BE voidable or Un enforceable, but not necessarily so.

 

[HenryBHough]

Thread title may well be the Democrat Party's platform for 2016!

 

[Syriusly]

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.

Like this one from my states (Virginia):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
​

The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.


I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.


>>>>

You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also

Deflection.

1. It was the owner that quoted Leviticus when he referred to the couple as an abomination. Maybe you should right a letter to Aaron Klein and explain the difference.

2. Deflection from the post I responded to. It was Social Conservatives that fought against and banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

The Leviticus law condemning homosexuality is valid, it's a moral law, not ceremonial or dietary law and the New Covenant didn't void it

Perhaps you should comment on topics you are knowledgeable about?

Convenient isn't it- that the Cons claim Leviticus is still valid when they want it to be- but no longer valid when they want to eat shrimp?

 

[g5000]

Liberals are outraged that some localities are refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's new Dred Scott ruling, i.e., its ruling on gay marriage. They scream "equal protection under the law."

But, what a minute! How about "equal protection under the law" for men whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with consenting pubescent preteens? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with animals?

A classic apples and oranges fallacy.

I can prove an adult molesting a child causes harm. You cannot prove consensual sex between adults does.

That makes all the difference, dipshit.

You see, you have to have a RATIONAL reason for discrimination. None of you anti-gay bigots has ever provided one.

 

[Syriusly]

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

That.

And I would say that even if there were bitchin, if the laws were changed as they should have been changed, and were being changed slowly. Then at least the majority would have had some say in what happened, not just 5 old men and women making law.

Or we could have the Supreme Court actually protect our rights.

We didn't wait for the country to change its attitude in Loving v. Virginia- no reason to wait until all your decided not to discriminate against homosexuals before letting them legally marry.

Again huge differences.

Marriage, regardless of what you may claim, traditionally or by dictionary has ever been anything other then between a man and a woman, that didn't change with Loving.
.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman- and a man and many woman.

Really based upon that argument polygamous marriage would be legal in America.

But you dance away from the essential problem with your argument.

When Loving v. Virginia was decided- the majority of Americans opposed mixed race marriages. The Supreme Court( 5 old men and women making law) overturned that State marriage law- despite what the majority wanted. It took another 25 years before most Americans agreed with the Court.

But when it comes to gay marriage bans- suddenly then you are opposed to the Court deciding on the Constitutionality of State bans.

The difference between Loving and gay marriage is that the Supreme Court in this case is following public opinion- not leading it.

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals are outraged that some localities are refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's new Dred Scott ruling, i.e., its ruling on gay marriage. They scream "equal protection under the law."

But, what a minute! How about "equal protection under the law" for men whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with consenting pubescent preteens? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with animals? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have multiple wives purely for sexual enjoyment and not for any religious purposes?

"But those things are all illegal," say liberals. So what: Just make them legal. Homosexuality used to be illegal too, until 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that it should now be legal. So just pass new laws or get the Supreme Court to legalize sex with consenting pubescent preteens, beastiality, and polygamy. If one perversion can be legalized, other perversions should be legalized. It is discriminatory and unfair to allow homosexuals to love and marry but to deny this "fundamental right" to adults and pubescent pubescent who merely want to love and marry each other, to adults and animals who merely want to love and marry each other, and to men and multiple women who merely want to love and marry.

"But preteen girls can't give proper consent, nor can animals." First off, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. So that argument is a non-starter. Second, animals can give their consent in their own way; animals can make it clear that they love their human lover and have no desire to leave. So just change the law to allow animals to consent in their own way. After all, "society has no right to dictate who a person can and can't love or marry, and has no right to judge one type of love to be better or worse than another."

"But the Supreme Court has ruled that polygamy is unconstitutional." So just get the current Supreme Court to overrule that decision, just like you did in 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that somehow all state laws against homosexuality were suddenly "unconstitutional."

Some animal lovers and polygamists have already filed lawsuits to be allowed "equal protection under the law." In Europe some liberals have been trying for years to weaken or abolish laws against adult-child sexual relationships between adults and consenting pubescent children. Indeed, some of the scientists who have peddled the "gays are born gay" myth also claim that pedophiles are "born that way" too. It's high time that liberals in America get with their progressive brethren in Europe and push for equal protection for adults and pubescent children who only want to love and marry each other.

I will disagree that animals and children are eligible to marry PERIOD. But I keep asking the question about polygamy and incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows first cousins to marry BUT, they must be over 55 or provide proof both are sterile.

Now, if a same sex couple of 1st cousins apply for a marriage license in Wisconsin, neither sterile, neither under 55, what reasonable legal argument is there to deny them license.

There is only one, that is that straight couples can procreate. An absurd argument, and the gateway to reopening the SSM bans.

It's a paradox and a mess

LOL- so you are saying that there is no legal argument- and never has been any legal argument- to prevent siblings who are sterile from marrying?

You have no objection to siblings marrying- as long as they cannot have children?

Really?

And what about polygamy? You wrap polygamy and sibling marriage together- but you appear to have no actual argument against polygamy that is related in anyway to reproduction.

What is your argument against polygamous marriage- and how is it different today than it was 2 weeks ago?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When have animals EVER been given equal protection under the law in a SCOTUS ruling?

 

[Pop23]

Liberals are outraged that some localities are refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's new Dred Scott ruling, i.e., its ruling on gay marriage. They scream "equal protection under the law."

But, what a minute! How about "equal protection under the law" for men whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with consenting pubescent preteens? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with animals? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have multiple wives purely for sexual enjoyment and not for any religious purposes?

"But those things are all illegal," say liberals. So what: Just make them legal. Homosexuality used to be illegal too, until 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that it should now be legal. So just pass new laws or get the Supreme Court to legalize sex with consenting pubescent preteens, beastiality, and polygamy. If one perversion can be legalized, other perversions should be legalized. It is discriminatory and unfair to allow homosexuals to love and marry but to deny this "fundamental right" to adults and pubescent pubescent who merely want to love and marry each other, to adults and animals who merely want to love and marry each other, and to men and multiple women who merely want to love and marry.

"But preteen girls can't give proper consent, nor can animals." First off, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. So that argument is a non-starter. Second, animals can give their consent in their own way; animals can make it clear that they love their human lover and have no desire to leave. So just change the law to allow animals to consent in their own way. After all, "society has no right to dictate who a person can and can't love or marry, and has no right to judge one type of love to be better or worse than another."

"But the Supreme Court has ruled that polygamy is unconstitutional." So just get the current Supreme Court to overrule that decision, just like you did in 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that somehow all state laws against homosexuality were suddenly "unconstitutional."

Some animal lovers and polygamists have already filed lawsuits to be allowed "equal protection under the law." In Europe some liberals have been trying for years to weaken or abolish laws against adult-child sexual relationships between adults and consenting pubescent children. Indeed, some of the scientists who have peddled the "gays are born gay" myth also claim that pedophiles are "born that way" too. It's high time that liberals in America get with their progressive brethren in Europe and push for equal protection for adults and pubescent children who only want to love and marry each other.

I will disagree that animals and children are eligible to marry PERIOD. But I keep asking the question about polygamy and incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows first cousins to marry BUT, they must be over 55 or provide proof both are sterile.

Now, if a same sex couple of 1st cousins apply for a marriage license in Wisconsin, neither sterile, neither under 55, what reasonable legal argument is there to deny them license.

There is only one, that is that straight couples can procreate. An absurd argument, and the gateway to reopening the SSM bans.

It's a paradox and a mess

LOL- so you are saying that there is no legal argument- and never has been any legal argument- to prevent siblings who are sterile from marrying?

You have no objection to siblings marrying- as long as they cannot have children?

Really?

And what about polygamy? You wrap polygamy and sibling marriage together- but you appear to have no actual argument against polygamy that is related in anyway to reproduction.

What is your argument against polygamous marriage- and how is it different today than it was 2 weeks ago?

Oh, I have objections to polygamous and incestuous marriage, I've actually written about it several times. But without the limiting factor of one man married to one woman, not too closely related, I'm not sure what the legal argument to deny this RIGHT from someone WHO SIMPLY WANT TO LOVE MORE THAN ONE, or TWO SAME SEX SIBLINGS FROM MARRYING?

You?

 

[Pop23]

Liberals are outraged that some localities are refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's new Dred Scott ruling, i.e., its ruling on gay marriage. They scream "equal protection under the law."

But, what a minute! How about "equal protection under the law" for men whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with consenting pubescent preteens? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with animals? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have multiple wives purely for sexual enjoyment and not for any religious purposes?

"But those things are all illegal," say liberals. So what: Just make them legal. Homosexuality used to be illegal too, until 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that it should now be legal. So just pass new laws or get the Supreme Court to legalize sex with consenting pubescent preteens, beastiality, and polygamy. If one perversion can be legalized, other perversions should be legalized. It is discriminatory and unfair to allow homosexuals to love and marry but to deny this "fundamental right" to adults and pubescent pubescent who merely want to love and marry each other, to adults and animals who merely want to love and marry each other, and to men and multiple women who merely want to love and marry.

"But preteen girls can't give proper consent, nor can animals." First off, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. So that argument is a non-starter. Second, animals can give their consent in their own way; animals can make it clear that they love their human lover and have no desire to leave. So just change the law to allow animals to consent in their own way. After all, "society has no right to dictate who a person can and can't love or marry, and has no right to judge one type of love to be better or worse than another."

"But the Supreme Court has ruled that polygamy is unconstitutional." So just get the current Supreme Court to overrule that decision, just like you did in 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that somehow all state laws against homosexuality were suddenly "unconstitutional."

Some animal lovers and polygamists have already filed lawsuits to be allowed "equal protection under the law." In Europe some liberals have been trying for years to weaken or abolish laws against adult-child sexual relationships between adults and consenting pubescent children. Indeed, some of the scientists who have peddled the "gays are born gay" myth also claim that pedophiles are "born that way" too. It's high time that liberals in America get with their progressive brethren in Europe and push for equal protection for adults and pubescent children who only want to love and marry each other.

I will disagree that animals and children are eligible to marry PERIOD. But I keep asking the question about polygamy and incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows first cousins to marry BUT, they must be over 55 or provide proof both are sterile.

Now, if a same sex couple of 1st cousins apply for a marriage license in Wisconsin, neither sterile, neither under 55, what reasonable legal argument is there to deny them license.

There is only one, that is that straight couples can procreate. An absurd argument, and the gateway to reopening the SSM bans.

It's a paradox and a mess

LOL- so you are saying that there is no legal argument- and never has been any legal argument- to prevent siblings who are sterile from marrying?

You have no objection to siblings marrying- as long as they cannot have children?

Really?

And what about polygamy? You wrap polygamy and sibling marriage together- but you appear to have no actual argument against polygamy that is related in anyway to reproduction.

What is your argument against polygamous marriage- and how is it different today than it was 2 weeks ago?

You don't think the limiting of the supply of hetro spouses is about procreation?

 

[Freewill]

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

That.

And I would say that even if there were bitchin, if the laws were changed as they should have been changed, and were being changed slowly. Then at least the majority would have had some say in what happened, not just 5 old men and women making law.

Or we could have the Supreme Court actually protect our rights.

We didn't wait for the country to change its attitude in Loving v. Virginia- no reason to wait until all your decided not to discriminate against homosexuals before letting them legally marry.

Again huge differences.

Marriage, regardless of what you may claim, traditionally or by dictionary has ever been anything other then between a man and a woman, that didn't change with Loving.
.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman- and a man and many woman.

Really based upon that argument polygamous marriage would be legal in America.

But you dance away from the essential problem with your argument.

When Loving v. Virginia was decided- the majority of Americans opposed mixed race marriages. The Supreme Court( 5 old men and women making law) overturned that State marriage law- despite what the majority wanted. It took another 25 years before most Americans agreed with the Court.

But when it comes to gay marriage bans- suddenly then you are opposed to the Court deciding on the Constitutionality of State bans.

The difference between Loving and gay marriage is that the Supreme Court in this case is following public opinion- not leading it.

When did they have a vote on this alleged, the majority was against? So in loving you say they should not follow public opinion yet in the GM ruling they did and should? Really? Do you realize that is convoluted? How about they rule on the law for a change and the wording of the law instead of quasi making law.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.

Like this one from my states (Virginia):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
​

The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.


I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.


>>>>

You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also

Deflection.

1. It was the owner that quoted Leviticus when he referred to the couple as an abomination. Maybe you should right a letter to Aaron Klein and explain the difference.

2. Deflection from the post I responded to. It was Social Conservatives that fought against and banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

The Leviticus law condemning homosexuality is valid, it's a moral law, not ceremonial or dietary law and the New Covenant didn't void it

Perhaps you should comment on topics you are knowledgeable about?

By that logic, homosexuality between women is just fine because Leviticus says nothing about it. It should be clear as day that what is being sanctioned is NOT faithful, monogamous relationships between two people who love each other, but somehow that continues to elude discovery.

This is a discussion the Church needs to have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When have animals EVER been given equal protection under the law in a SCOTUS ruling?

Five hours later, no examples?

Can we dismiss this case then?

 

[Old Rocks]

I doubt the animal thing will come about but polygamy is on the table for sure and it's no secret there are more than a few that want age of consent laws lowered. Call it what it is, the depraved minds of the left.

Ah yes, good moral GOP leaders like Denny Hastert come to mind.