In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Syriusly]

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Here's your sign:

Selfie?

Still waiting

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Only one of those couples would have to prove they can't have children

You really are slowwwwwww

It shows the two demographic groups are nowhere near being closely related.

Keep trying, each and every time you show how vastly different the two groups are.

The two demographic groups are exactly as closely related- do try to keep up.

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Yet only one has to prove they can't procreate.

Oh my, your delusion is deep

Squirm little one squirm

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

 

[The Rabbi]

Selfie?

Still waiting

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Only one of those couples would have to prove they can't have children

You really are slowwwwwww

It shows the two demographic groups are nowhere near being closely related.

Keep trying, each and every time you show how vastly different the two groups are.

The two demographic groups are exactly as closely related- do try to keep up.

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Yet only one has to prove they can't procreate.

Oh my, your delusion is deep

Squirm little one squirm

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

The question is nonsensical.

 

[Syriusly]

So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?

Rabbi did a superb job of demonstrating that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in regard to the law. And that Rabbi quoting Rabbi as the law means exactly dick.

Which makes his latest attempts at citing himself as the law all the more peculiar. Its not like we can't read the law and see that he still doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

You are soo funny. You think you demonstrated something. In fact you demonstrated the opposite: you are ignorant and stupid and have lost the argument. The WI statute proves that.

The Wisconsin statute you said didn't that didn't exist- what were your words again exactly?

Oh right

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

 

[Syriusly]

Still waiting

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Only one of those couples would have to prove they can't have children

You really are slowwwwwww

It shows the two demographic groups are nowhere near being closely related.

Keep trying, each and every time you show how vastly different the two groups are.

The two demographic groups are exactly as closely related- do try to keep up.

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Yet only one has to prove they can't procreate.

Oh my, your delusion is deep

Squirm little one squirm

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

The question is nonsensical.

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

 

[Syriusly]

So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?

Rabbi did a superb job of demonstrating that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in regard to the law. And that Rabbi quoting Rabbi as the law means exactly dick.

Which makes his latest attempts at citing himself as the law all the more peculiar. Its not like we can't read the law and see that he still doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

You are soo funny. You think you demonstrated something. In fact you demonstrated the opposite: you are ignorant and stupid and have lost the argument. The WI statute proves that.

Your statement is nonsense.

 

[The Rabbi]

So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?

Rabbi did a superb job of demonstrating that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in regard to the law. And that Rabbi quoting Rabbi as the law means exactly dick.

Which makes his latest attempts at citing himself as the law all the more peculiar. Its not like we can't read the law and see that he still doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

You are soo funny. You think you demonstrated something. In fact you demonstrated the opposite: you are ignorant and stupid and have lost the argument. The WI statute proves that.

The Wisconsin statute you said didn't that didn't exist- what were your words again exactly?

Oh right

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

And if there is it doesnt prove your case. That's what I also wrote. And I was correct both times. There is no suchj statute as you stated it. And the fact that there is a statute similar to it indicates you are wrong.
Just keep posting the same shit over and over. It indicates you are out of bullets.

 

[Skylar]

Right. You lied by omission. And now cannot understand how your citation of the Wisconsin law refutes your case entirely. Because you are stupid and ignorant. Ignorant because you dont know why they have such a law in the first place. Stupid because you wont bother finding out.

He 'lied by omission' by accurately representing the Wisconsin law? I don't think 'lie by omission' means what you think it means.

You....you do realize that we can read the Wisconsin law, right? That we can compare Syrius' statement'

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

With the Wisconsin law;

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

...and see in about a second that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Laughing.....I love this paradigm.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only one of those couples would have to prove they can't have children

You really are slowwwwwww

It shows the two demographic groups are nowhere near being closely related.

Keep trying, each and every time you show how vastly different the two groups are.

The two demographic groups are exactly as closely related- do try to keep up.

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Yet only one has to prove they can't procreate.

Oh my, your delusion is deep

Squirm little one squirm

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

The question is nonsensical.

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

OK, so you are admitting you post nonsense. That is one step towards getting help.

 

[The Rabbi]

Right. You lied by omission. And now cannot understand how your citation of the Wisconsin law refutes your case entirely. Because you are stupid and ignorant. Ignorant because you dont know why they have such a law in the first place. Stupid because you wont bother finding out.

He 'lied by omission' by accurately representing the Wisconsin law? I don't think 'lie by omission' means what you think it means.

You....you do realize that we can read the Wisconsin law, right? That we can compare Syrius' statement'

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

With the Wisconsin law;

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

...and see in about a second that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Laughing.....I love this paradigm.

You dont understand what lie by omission means.
I am proven correct in all I have written.

 

[Syriusly]

The two demographic groups are exactly as closely related- do try to keep up.

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Yet only one has to prove they can't procreate.

Oh my, your delusion is deep

Squirm little one squirm

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

The question is nonsensical.

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

OK, so you are admitting you post nonsense. That is one step towards getting help.

Well we have established that you have no problem lying. Apparently one more is no problem for you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet only one has to prove they can't procreate.

Oh my, your delusion is deep

Squirm little one squirm

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

The question is nonsensical.

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

OK, so you are admitting you post nonsense. That is one step towards getting help.

Well we have established that you have no problem lying. Apparently one more is no problem for you.

That's callled "projection" as you are the only one who has lied here. Now you've done it twice.

 

[Syriusly]

Right. You lied by omission. And now cannot understand how your citation of the Wisconsin law refutes your case entirely. Because you are stupid and ignorant. Ignorant because you dont know why they have such a law in the first place. Stupid because you wont bother finding out.

He 'lied by omission' by accurately representing the Wisconsin law? I don't think 'lie by omission' means what you think it means.

You....you do realize that we can read the Wisconsin law, right? That we can compare Syrius' statement'

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

With the Wisconsin law;

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

...and see in about a second that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Laughing.....I love this paradigm.

You dont understand what lie by omission means.
I am proven correct in all I have written.

LOL....because your own words show you are lying?

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

Note: Wisconsin law does exactly what I said it does.

You just don't have the stones to admit you were wrong. And lie about it.

 

[Syriusly]

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

The question is nonsensical.

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

OK, so you are admitting you post nonsense. That is one step towards getting help.

Well we have established that you have no problem lying. Apparently one more is no problem for you.

That's callled "projection" as you are the only one who has lied here. Now you've done it twice.

I enjoy re-posting this.

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

 

[Skylar]

And if there is it doesnt prove your case. That's what I also wrote. And I was correct both times. There is no suchj statute as you stated it. And the fact that there is a statute similar to it indicates you are wrong.
Just keep posting the same shit over and over. It indicates you are out of bullets.

I don't think 'correct' means what you think it means either. As you were gloriously wrong about the Wisconsin law existing. And isconsin wasn't the only State with a similar rule in its law. Making your 'single aberration' nonsense yet another example of how you have no idea what you're talking about.

Smiling....I've actually forwarded this thread to buddies of mine so they could laugh as hard at your floundering as I still am.

 

[Skylar]

The question is nonsensical.

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

OK, so you are admitting you post nonsense. That is one step towards getting help.

Well we have established that you have no problem lying. Apparently one more is no problem for you.

That's callled "projection" as you are the only one who has lied here. Now you've done it twice.

I enjoy re-posting this.

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

I know, right! Its the gift that keeps on giving. All you have to do is quote that.....and you force Rabbi to burn more credibility. As he can't stop himself from denying the existence of what everyone here can read.

Its like watching someone screaming 'There is no such thing as the Grand Canyon!' as they're falling into it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The question is nonsensical.

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

OK, so you are admitting you post nonsense. That is one step towards getting help.

Well we have established that you have no problem lying. Apparently one more is no problem for you.

That's callled "projection" as you are the only one who has lied here. Now you've done it twice.

I enjoy re-posting this.

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

Rught, you've proven that you lie by omission, having done it twice and reposting it. So what?

 

[The Rabbi]

I could say that about every single post of Pops- clearly nonsense is not a criteria here.

OK, so you are admitting you post nonsense. That is one step towards getting help.

Well we have established that you have no problem lying. Apparently one more is no problem for you.

That's callled "projection" as you are the only one who has lied here. Now you've done it twice.

I enjoy re-posting this.

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

I know, right! Its the gift that keeps on giving. All you have to do is quote that.....and you force Rabbi to burn more credibility. As he can't stop himself from denying the existence of what everyone here can read.

Its like watching someone screaming 'There is no such thing as the Grand Canyon!' as they're falling into it.

Do you have anything of substance here or are you conceding total and complete defeat?

 

[Skylar]

Do you have anything of substance here or are you conceding total and complete defeat?

Laughing...I don't think 'defeat' means what you think it means either. Given that you've already abandoned every argument you've made about gay marriage in favor of your 'The Wisconsin law doesn't exist! Don't look at it! Don't you dare look at it!' schtick, I win yet again.

I love this paradigm, don't you? It costs you credibility....and costs me nothing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have anything of substance here or are you conceding total and complete defeat?

Laughing...I don't think 'defeat' means what you think it means either. Given that you've already abandoned every argument you've made about gay marriage in favor of your 'The Wisconsin law doesn't exist! Don't look at it! Don't you dare look at it!' schtick, I win yet again.

I love this paradigm, don't you? It costs you credibility....and costs me nothing.

OK, I'll take that as an admission that you have nothing left and you were wrong and I have thoroughly humiliated you on this thread because your head is stuffed with broccoli.
Have a good day.

 

[Skylar]

You dont understand what lie by omission means.
I am proven correct in all I have written.

And by 'proven', you mean you agree with you? Because the Wisconsin law certainly doesn't;

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

Deny it again, and I'll quote it again. You make this so easy.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about in regard to the law. Nor does the law have anything to do with your 'legal interpretations'. As you demonstrate every time you deny the Wisconsin law requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before Wisconsin will allow them to legally marry.