Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Pop23]

How does incest hurt me?

yes, do you think you will be participating in it?

Absolutely not

Cute question though.

My line of questioning is how do you stop it. There appears no reasonable legal basis to stop same sex siblings from the right

you keep asking the question, but you keep failing to say why it is such a concern to you.
how are we going to stop men from having sex with watermelons? sex with fruits certainly could be the next step.

I see, another red herring. Marriage cannot be between a human and an inanimate object.

But another cute statement.

so you admit that marriage CAN be between related individuals, obviously you do see some value there. Are you in fear of losing your wife to her brother?
Unless you tell us what your exact fears are, we can only come up with foolish responses to you. If you tell us, then we can have an open conversation that might turn on a light in our heads, or yours. Are you afraid of being enlightened? Im not. I used to be 100% against gay marriage, but after a long time of trying to argue it on forums and in person, I realized that not only was I being a bigoted ass about it, but in the end (no pun) it really did nothing to affect my life.
If it does not affect me, what right do I have to try and keep another person from being happy.
so please, outline your fears or negative feelings to marriage that does not involve only one man and one woman.

Oh, I see, I have to express my feeelingssssssss, what, I'm running for office?

Do my feelings change the legal reasoning of the arguments?

Sorry, you play that game, I'm not

 

[Pop23]

How does incest hurt me?

yes, do you think you will be participating in it?

My line of questioning is how do you stop it. There appears no reasonable legal basis to stop same sex siblings from the right

There doesn't appear to be one to you- because you won't accept any argument.

Because that would shatter your stupid thesis.

Shatter it then

What you waiting for

Your invitation in the mail?

I have- repeatedly.

Which is why you are so frustrated.

Oh, we'll just take your word for it then.

You are dispatched. Of course that actually happened days ago.

You're admission that same sex marriage will lead to incestuous marriage is duly noted.

 

[Pop23]

How does incest hurt me?

yes, do you think you will be participating in it?

My line of questioning is how do you stop it. There appears no reasonable legal basis to stop same sex siblings from the right

There doesn't appear to be one to you- because you won't accept any argument.

Because that would shatter your stupid thesis.

Present one that holds water.

Because that demographic group can procreate and that one can't had already failed the legal test.

If it had not, we would not be talking.

I have posted the judges comments three times now- no reason for me to post her reasoning again.

Which were based on what study?

If not it is simply an arbitrary guess

 

[Maryland Patriot]

yes, do you think you will be participating in it?

Absolutely not

Cute question though.

My line of questioning is how do you stop it. There appears no reasonable legal basis to stop same sex siblings from the right

you keep asking the question, but you keep failing to say why it is such a concern to you.
how are we going to stop men from having sex with watermelons? sex with fruits certainly could be the next step.

I see, another red herring. Marriage cannot be between a human and an inanimate object.

But another cute statement.

so you admit that marriage CAN be between related individuals, obviously you do see some value there. Are you in fear of losing your wife to her brother?
Unless you tell us what your exact fears are, we can only come up with foolish responses to you. If you tell us, then we can have an open conversation that might turn on a light in our heads, or yours. Are you afraid of being enlightened? Im not. I used to be 100% against gay marriage, but after a long time of trying to argue it on forums and in person, I realized that not only was I being a bigoted ass about it, but in the end (no pun) it really did nothing to affect my life.
If it does not affect me, what right do I have to try and keep another person from being happy.
so please, outline your fears or negative feelings to marriage that does not involve only one man and one woman.

Oh, I see, I have to express my feeelingssssssss, what, I'm running for office?

Do my feelings change the legal reasoning of the arguments?

Sorry, you play that game, I'm not

not saying you have to express your feelings, just tell us what you are thinking, what you fear from gay marriage.
and you have no true legal reason, the legal reason would be based on fear, just like it was for gay marriage.
So, unless you are going to present your side to the argument, you lose. I would really like to see you engage in an honest discussion that could be countered or agreed with based on facts.
Or am I asking too much.
its icky so it must not be allowed. I understand.

 

[Pop23]

How does incest hurt me?

yes, do you think you will be participating in it?

Absolutely not

Cute question though.

My line of questioning is how do you stop it. There appears no reasonable legal basis to stop same sex siblings from the right

you keep asking the question, but you keep failing to say why it is such a concern to you.
how are we going to stop men from having sex with watermelons? sex with fruits certainly could be the next step.

I see, another red herring. Marriage cannot be between a human and an inanimate object.

But another cute statement.

so you admit that marriage CAN be between related individuals, obviously you do see some value there. Are you in fear of losing your wife to her brother?
Unless you tell us what your exact fears are, we can only come up with foolish responses to you. If you tell us, then we can have an open conversation that might turn on a light in our heads, or yours. Are you afraid of being enlightened? Im not. I used to be 100% against gay marriage, but after a long time of trying to argue it on forums and in person, I realized that not only was I being a bigoted ass about it, but in the end (no pun) it really did nothing to affect my life.
If it does not affect me, what right do I have to try and keep another person from being happy.
so please, outline your fears or negative feelings to marriage that does not involve only one man and one woman.

If you lost the argument on same sex marriage then you are bound to lose the argument that incestuous marriage can be banned. They are one and the same.

You realize that incest leads to defective children and bloodlines, right?

But hay, that dude over there is happy, so on with life, right?

 

[Pop23]

Absolutely not

Cute question though.

My line of questioning is how do you stop it. There appears no reasonable legal basis to stop same sex siblings from the right

you keep asking the question, but you keep failing to say why it is such a concern to you.
how are we going to stop men from having sex with watermelons? sex with fruits certainly could be the next step.

I see, another red herring. Marriage cannot be between a human and an inanimate object.

But another cute statement.

so you admit that marriage CAN be between related individuals, obviously you do see some value there. Are you in fear of losing your wife to her brother?
Unless you tell us what your exact fears are, we can only come up with foolish responses to you. If you tell us, then we can have an open conversation that might turn on a light in our heads, or yours. Are you afraid of being enlightened? Im not. I used to be 100% against gay marriage, but after a long time of trying to argue it on forums and in person, I realized that not only was I being a bigoted ass about it, but in the end (no pun) it really did nothing to affect my life.
If it does not affect me, what right do I have to try and keep another person from being happy.
so please, outline your fears or negative feelings to marriage that does not involve only one man and one woman.

Oh, I see, I have to express my feeelingssssssss, what, I'm running for office?

Do my feelings change the legal reasoning of the arguments?

Sorry, you play that game, I'm not

not saying you have to express your feelings, just tell us what you are thinking, what you fear from gay marriage.
and you have no true legal reason, the legal reason would be based on fear, just like it was for gay marriage.
So, unless you are going to present your side to the argument, you lose. I would really like to see you engage in an honest discussion that could be countered or agreed with based on facts.
Or am I asking too much.
its icky so it must not be allowed. I understand.

Oh you do prattle on

 

[Maryland Patriot]

you keep asking the question, but you keep failing to say why it is such a concern to you.
how are we going to stop men from having sex with watermelons? sex with fruits certainly could be the next step.

I see, another red herring. Marriage cannot be between a human and an inanimate object.

But another cute statement.

so you admit that marriage CAN be between related individuals, obviously you do see some value there. Are you in fear of losing your wife to her brother?
Unless you tell us what your exact fears are, we can only come up with foolish responses to you. If you tell us, then we can have an open conversation that might turn on a light in our heads, or yours. Are you afraid of being enlightened? Im not. I used to be 100% against gay marriage, but after a long time of trying to argue it on forums and in person, I realized that not only was I being a bigoted ass about it, but in the end (no pun) it really did nothing to affect my life.
If it does not affect me, what right do I have to try and keep another person from being happy.
so please, outline your fears or negative feelings to marriage that does not involve only one man and one woman.

Oh, I see, I have to express my feeelingssssssss, what, I'm running for office?

Do my feelings change the legal reasoning of the arguments?

Sorry, you play that game, I'm not

not saying you have to express your feelings, just tell us what you are thinking, what you fear from gay marriage.
and you have no true legal reason, the legal reason would be based on fear, just like it was for gay marriage.
So, unless you are going to present your side to the argument, you lose. I would really like to see you engage in an honest discussion that could be countered or agreed with based on facts.
Or am I asking too much.
its icky so it must not be allowed. I understand.

Oh you do prattle on

To you I may prattle on, but I can come up with arguments why I feel as I do.
I suggest you do some research on maybe how many generations it actually takes of exclusive inbreeding to begin seeing abnormalities in the offspring. Hint, its not going to happen with the first child.

 

[Pop23]

I see, another red herring. Marriage cannot be between a human and an inanimate object.

But another cute statement.

so you admit that marriage CAN be between related individuals, obviously you do see some value there. Are you in fear of losing your wife to her brother?
Unless you tell us what your exact fears are, we can only come up with foolish responses to you. If you tell us, then we can have an open conversation that might turn on a light in our heads, or yours. Are you afraid of being enlightened? Im not. I used to be 100% against gay marriage, but after a long time of trying to argue it on forums and in person, I realized that not only was I being a bigoted ass about it, but in the end (no pun) it really did nothing to affect my life.
If it does not affect me, what right do I have to try and keep another person from being happy.
so please, outline your fears or negative feelings to marriage that does not involve only one man and one woman.

Oh, I see, I have to express my feeelingssssssss, what, I'm running for office?

Do my feelings change the legal reasoning of the arguments?

Sorry, you play that game, I'm not

not saying you have to express your feelings, just tell us what you are thinking, what you fear from gay marriage.
and you have no true legal reason, the legal reason would be based on fear, just like it was for gay marriage.
So, unless you are going to present your side to the argument, you lose. I would really like to see you engage in an honest discussion that could be countered or agreed with based on facts.
Or am I asking too much.
its icky so it must not be allowed. I understand.

Oh you do prattle on

To you I may prattle on, but I can come up with arguments why I feel as I do.
I suggest you do some research on maybe how many generations it actually takes of exclusive inbreeding to begin seeing abnormalities in the offspring. Hint, its not going to happen with the first child.

And the evidence is slight. There simply is not enough of a sample to make a determination based on solid research.

You may not care that it would adversely effect generations past your own child, but I think billions of others do.

Incest does not move the species forward. It makes it weaker.

Personally, I do care that I leave the world a better place.

10 Incendiary Facts About Incest - Listverse

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What doesn't kill them makes them crazier. People like this just won't let the country get beyond the divisiveness and accept the new normal.....

Tony Perkins: Stop Saying 'God Bless America' After Gay Marriage Ruling Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 7/10/2015 11:20

I am Still reeling from the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said on his radio show yesterday that the U.S. will no longer receive God’s blessing. When a caller, Hector, told Perkins that he no longer likes to hear the phrase “God bless America” now that the Supreme Court has struck down bans on gay marriage, Perkins responded that “it’s hard for us to ask God to bless America when we have blatantly rejected what God has said a nation should do. So every time I hear that, ‘God bless America,’ I’m thinking, America is not in a posture for God to bless it.” -

See more at: Tony Perkins Stop Saying God Bless America After Gay Marriage Ruling Right Wing Watch

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now here is something that certain people on this forum should consider……maybe you too are being manipulated

Anti-LGBT Christian organizations are exploiting county clerks and peddling lies about marriage equality http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/anti-lgbt-christian-organizations-are-exploiting-county-clerks-and-peddling-lies-about-marriage-equality/


In an essay published Friday at Huffington Post, Alvin McEwan of the blog Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters wrote about the network of far-right Christian legal organizations that are exploiting and manipulating county clerks who refuse to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“We are all being played for fools. The clerks who are pitifully stalling or outright refusing to marry couples (gay or heterosexual) under the guise of ‘religious freedom,’ and the LGBT community are all being manipulated and exploited,” McEwan said.

These groups, he said, are trying to create a media circus around the fight for same-sex couples to marry, and in order to do so they are buoying up doomed efforts be local county clerks to flout the law.

“Via mass and social media, they create and repeat inane horror stories of persecution and false claims that gays want to destroy Christianity,” he said.

For instance, a story currently making the rounds of your conservative relatives’ Facebook pages and howling, all-caps emails in which a gay man is reportedly suing two publishers of Christian Bibles for $70 million due to the Bible’s depiction of LGBT people.

The story has a grain of truth, seven years ago, a man named Bradley LaShawn Foster filed a sprawling, hand-written lawsuit against two Bible publishers in Michigan federal court for causing him twenty years of emotional distress as a gay man.

The suit was dismissed in 2009 with no judgment. Foster lost his case

 

[danielpalos]

Why not simply record private Acts with the public sector for full Faith and credit purposes; regardless of any alleged religionists claiming faith through the subjective value of morals.

 

[Silhouette]

Why not simply record private Acts with the public sector for full Faith and credit purposes; regardless of any alleged religionists claiming faith through the subjective value of morals.

Because you know...there's the cakes, the photos, flowers and catering...and extremely-litigious LGBT militants unwilling to go down the street to get those services from folks who haven't believed since they were knee high that homosexuality is a sin they cannot promote taking over their culture (marriage)..

This isn't just a judge saying "no on religious grounds". Though his position AS a judge puts the bold, italics and underscore on the stance for sure.

He has big balls and I applaud him. No rolling over, selling his soul and pissing on himself for this guy..

 

[danielpalos]

We have public accommodation laws for Merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis. Religious objections fall under socialism, not capitalism and should be advanced on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

 

[Silhouette]

We have public accommodation laws for Merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis. Religious objections fall under socialism, not capitalism and should be advanced on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

OK.

 

[danielpalos]

We have public accommodation laws for Merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis. Religious objections fall under socialism, not capitalism and should be advanced on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

OK.

Don't You believe our First Amendment applies in the case of political-religious objection in our political-economy.

In any Case, why do you assume that Person is doing it on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis?

 

[Silhouette]

We have public accommodation laws for Merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis. Religious objections fall under socialism, not capitalism and should be advanced on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

OK.

Don't You believe our First Amendment applies in the case of political-religious objection in our political-economy.

In any Case, why do you assume that Person is doing it on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis?

You didn't answer my question. Answer it. Don't fall back on your psuedo-intellectual obfuscating-language escape hatch.

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

 

[danielpalos]

We have public accommodation laws for Merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis. Religious objections fall under socialism, not capitalism and should be advanced on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

OK.

Don't You believe our First Amendment applies in the case of political-religious objection in our political-economy.

In any Case, why do you assume that Person is doing it on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis?

You didn't answer my question. Answer it. Don't fall back on your psuedo-intellectual obfuscating-language escape hatch.

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

No, I don't simply because a biilboard advertisement is not the same or equivalent to actually denying otherwise good customers, good customer service under Any form of Capitalism, but not socialism.

 

[Silhouette]

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

No, I don't simply because a biilboard advertisement is not the same or equivalent to actually denying otherwise good customers, good customer service under Any form of Capitalism, but not socialism.

So a Christian wanting a billboard reflecting their beliefs and practices is, according to you, "not a good customer" and therefore worthy of being discriminated against because of their lifestyle or 1st Amendment civil right beliefs?

Is it legal or illegal to print a billboard that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? If it is legal to print that and a homosexual billboard artist turns down a Christian on that order on principle, then according to the letter of PA laws, the homosexual may be sued by the Christian for violating the Christian's civil rights.

 

[Skylar]

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

No, I don't simply because a biilboard advertisement is not the same or equivalent to actually denying otherwise good customers, good customer service under Any form of Capitalism, but not socialism.

So a Christian wanting a billboard reflecting their beliefs and practices is, according to you, "not a good customer" and therefore worthy of being discriminated against because of their lifestyle or 1st Amendment civil right beliefs?

We'll see. I suspect that speech itself will have a higher threshold of protection than say, baking. A baker for example could refuse to put a message on a cake they find offense, but would have to bake the cake itself. Speech, written or spoken, has far greater protections than pictures or confections.

 

[danielpalos]

So you believe a Christian can sue a gay billboard artist for his objections on principle to printing "Homosexuality is a sign unto God" for a sign that will sit by a busy highway?

No, I don't simply because a biilboard advertisement is not the same or equivalent to actually denying otherwise good customers, good customer service under Any form of Capitalism, but not socialism.

So a Christian wanting a billboard reflecting their beliefs and practices is, according to you, "not a good customer" and therefore worthy of being discriminated against because of their lifestyle or 1st Amendment civil right beliefs?

Is it legal or illegal to print a billboard that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? If it is legal to print that and a homosexual billboard artist turns down a Christian on that order on principle, then according to the letter of PA laws, the homosexual may be sued by the Christian for violating the Christian's civil rights.

A billboard could be protected speech if political (propaganda and rhetoric) and no public accommodation services are being offered on a for-profit basis as a Merchant in Commerce.

In any Case, I am with the Austrian School of thought on this one; caveat emptor must apply to any market (for Knowledge).