In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Skylar]

\
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.

You've already abandoned your every argument on gay marriage. Come on back anytime you want another lesson in why you citing yourself on the law means exactly nothing.

I'll be happy to teach you yet again.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

I think 'lie by ommission' must be Conservative speak for 'Crap, I was caught lying what the hell do I say now"

I will enjoy reposting your 'Bullshit" every time. No omission there- the omission is ever admitting that your BS was BS.

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]

I think 'lie by ommission' must be Conservative speak for 'Crap, I was caught lying what the hell do I say now"

Its just more vague accusations. Its Rabbi's tell. When he paints himself into a corner, he starts spewing uselessly vague accusations, alluding to uselessly vague 'evidence'.

He can't cite the lies or show us the evidence. Or establish that either exist. But remember that in conservative circles, its not the truth of a claim that's the most important. Its how many times you repeat it. In the right wing echo chamber, that jedi-mind trick works all the time.

In the real world, not so much.

 

[Skylar]

So......anyone else like to answer the question:

If marriage is all about children, why does Wisconsin require some couples to prove the CAN'T have children before they are ALLOWED to be married?

Please note the words 'can't. and 'allowed'. For some reason, they throw a lot of our anti-gay marriage crowd.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

'lies by omission' is Rabbi's way of saying "Oh crap I opened my mouth without really knowing what the hell I was talking about- and its all Syriously's fault!"

 

[The Rabbi]

\
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.

You've already abandoned your every argument on gay marriage. Come on back anytime you want another lesson in why you citing yourself on the law means exactly nothing.

I'll be happy to teach you yet again.

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

 

[The Rabbi]

So......anyone else like to answer the question:

If marriage is all about children, why does Wisconsin require some couples to prove the CAN'T have children before they are ALLOWED to be married?

Please note the words 'can't. and 'allowed'. For some reason, they throw a lot of our anti-gay marriage crowd.

Why dont you tell us why WI has that law to begin with?
Because a) you dont know (ignorant) b) you wont find out (stupid), and c) if you ever did you would understand you lost the argument (dishonest).

 

[Skylar]

Why dont you tell us why WI has that law to begin with?

You mean the WI law that you are still insisting doesn't exist? I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

Because a) you dont know (ignorant) b) you wont find out (stupid), and c) if you ever did you would understand you lost the argument (dishonest).

And right on cue, exactly as predicted, its more 'secret evidence'. That of course Rabbi can't produce, can't validate, or even demonstrates exists. Let alone has relevance to the discussion. Watch, I'll demonstrate:

Tell us, Rabbi.....why did WI have that law to begin with? And of course, please back that up with evidence.

Watch, as consistent as clockwork, Rabbi will either offer us his personal opinion as fact backed by nothing......or insist that he won't tell us the answer because we should already know. The evidence, you see...is secret. And if you don't know where he imagined it is, why he's not going to tell you. And of course, don't bother with what possible relevance his claim has with what's being discussed. There isn't any.

Its the same schtick pretty much every time Rabbi blunders on any point.

 

[Syriusly]

So......anyone else like to answer the question:

If marriage is all about children, why does Wisconsin require some couples to prove the CAN'T have children before they are ALLOWED to be married?

Please note the words 'can't. and 'allowed'. For some reason, they throw a lot of our anti-gay marriage crowd.

Why dont you tell us why WI has that law to begin with?
Because a) you dont know (ignorant) b) you wont find out (stupid), and c) if you ever did you would understand you lost the argument (dishonest).

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.

Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.

My claims have never been disproven..

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”).

Actually I was correct and you were wrong. As you stated it, there is no such law in WIsconsin. You lied by omission.
The funny thig is you think the existence of that law proves your point. In fact it does the exact opposite. It eviscerates your entire argument. You are simply too stupid to understand that.

Just don't have the balls to admit you were just wrong....lol

I can repost it as often as needed- the facts show exactly how you are lying.

Here is the dialogue you and I had- highlighted where you were wrong- and don't have the moral integrity to admit it.

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”).

Me:

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Rabbi: One aberrant case isnt proof of anything.

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

a) You claimed that a law in Wisconsin forbidding marriage to some couples unless they were infertile was BS
b) You claimed one aberrant case was not proof- so I provided you with 5
c) You claimed The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens- and have not once addressed the 5 state laws which provide for marriage only if no future citizens can be produced. The State could have forbidden those marriages- but instead chooses to allow those marriages only if they NEVER produce 'future citizens'- what distinguishes those couples from same gender couples?

Just another homophobe who has no balls.

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.

You lied, you got caught by a trick, so man up, weasel.

A state cannot lose a power it did not constitutionally possess.

 

[Skylar]

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

I'm not the one that insisted that no Wisconsin law exists that requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

That would be you:

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

Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

But you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about...did you?

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”).

Dude, its not like we can't read the law just because you completely fucked up about its existence. Your denials only continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about, and your legal 'interpretations' have nothing to do with the law.

Laughing....I love this paradigm!

 

[Skylar]

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

He's trying it because this actually works in the right wing echo chamber. Its like some bizarrely batshit version of Field of Dreams; "If you repeat it, they will come''.

The only reasons he's running into problems here is that this isn't the right wing echo chamber. So cut the guy some slack. This has to be very disorienting for him.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

He's trying it because this actually works in the right wing echo chamber. Its like some bizarrely batshit version of Field of Dreams; "If you repeat it, they will come''.

The only reasons he's running into problems here is that this isn't the right wing echo chamber. So cut the guy some slack. This has to be very disorienting for him.

 

[Syriusly]

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

He's trying it because this actually works in the right wing echo chamber. Its like some bizarrely batshit version of Field of Dreams; "If you repeat it, they will come''.

The only reasons he's running into problems here is that this isn't the right wing echo chamber. So cut the guy some slack. This has to be very disorienting for him.

What is it with Conservatives and foul language anyway?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

He's trying it because this actually works in the right wing echo chamber. Its like some bizarrely batshit version of Field of Dreams; "If you repeat it, they will come''.

The only reasons he's running into problems here is that this isn't the right wing echo chamber. So cut the guy some slack. This has to be very disorienting for him.

Rabbi is hiding behind the old RWnut theory that you're never wrong until you admit you were wrong. So he won't admit it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

He's trying it because this actually works in the right wing echo chamber. Its like some bizarrely batshit version of Field of Dreams; "If you repeat it, they will come''.

The only reasons he's running into problems here is that this isn't the right wing echo chamber. So cut the guy some slack. This has to be very disorienting for him.

Rabbi is hiding behind the old RWnut theory that you're never wrong until you admit you were wrong. So he won't admit it.

When I'm wrong, I admit it.
What about you, lunkhead?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ok, I get the point here: you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, cannot think critically, and simply repeat yourself hoping that makes you look good.
No need to respond.

He's trying it because this actually works in the right wing echo chamber. Its like some bizarrely batshit version of Field of Dreams; "If you repeat it, they will come''.

The only reasons he's running into problems here is that this isn't the right wing echo chamber. So cut the guy some slack. This has to be very disorienting for him.

Rabbi is hiding behind the old RWnut theory that you're never wrong until you admit you were wrong. So he won't admit it.

When I'm wrong, I admit it.
What about you, lunkhead?

That's an easy claim to make when you also reserve the right to decide for yourself whether or not you were wrong.

Did you admit the other day you were wrong when you made that claim about ALL Democrats?

 

[Silhouette]

I'm a democrat and I'm against gay marriage for a variety of reasons. I'm for green energy, universal healthcare and bringing jobs home. There are millions of us, tens of millions in the middle who are quite sensible about gay marriage. Compassion for gays but NO promotion of their culture into the normal one. The buck stops there.