Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[Pop23]

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

They go limp?

 

[kaz]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

 

[kaz]

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

In this case, dear Person on the Right, it is this relevant: Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

And, not Only that, but also this: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Koala bears have invaded my basement. Now I wish I never started growing Euycalyptus trees down there. I'm thinking of chasing them out with mint spaghetti

 

[kaz]

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

Never. The arguments for same sex marriage work equally well for same sex sibling marriage (SSSM).

Disagree?

Then argue the point and quite whining.

Other people can't decide what marriage is, but Skylar can. His arguments don't have to be consistent, he is the final say

 

[kaz]

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

They go limp?

He's Canadian, we can't use normal logic with him. You have to use Canadian logic

 

[danielpalos]

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

In this case, dear Person on the Right, it is this relevant: Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

And, not Only that, but also this: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Koala bears have invaded my basement. Now I wish I never started growing Euycalyptus trees down there. I'm thinking of chasing them out with mint spaghetti

i have taken to filing on our lemon tree with a wood rasp, to give her a smoothie.

 

[danielpalos]

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

They go limp?

He's Canadian, we can't use normal logic with him. You have to use Canadian logic

cucumbers don't have to care about language simply because they are not political animals.

 

[Pop23]

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

They go limp?

He's Canadian, we can't use normal logic with him. You have to use Canadian logic

Ok, end every sentence with AYE.

Got it and many thanks

 

[kaz]

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

They go limp?

He's Canadian, we can't use normal logic with him. You have to use Canadian logic

Ok, end every sentence with AYE.

Got it and many thanks

You got it! You're right, that has to be confusing for him. He keeps wondering when I'm going to let him know I'm finished.

BTW, I always see it spelled "eh." I'm not being a word check ass like PaintMyHouse, just thought you'd like to know

 

[Seawytch]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

 

[Pop23]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

 

[Seawytch]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

 

[kaz]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

There is no legal merit other than you want it. Which is fine to argue to the legislature. Arguing it to the courts is only asking them to undercut the law so you can cut in line and skip the part about convincing anyone. There is no argument you have that doesn't apply to siblings and polygamists as well

 

[Seawytch]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

There is no legal merit other than you want it. Which is fine to argue to the legislature. Arguing it to the courts is only asking them to undercut the law so you can cut in line and skip the part about convincing anyone. There is no argument you have that doesn't apply to siblings and polygamists as well

And yet court after court disagrees with your opinion. Do you think the same will hold true for incest? Really and truly?

 

[Pop23]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

 

[Pop23]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

There is no legal merit other than you want it. Which is fine to argue to the legislature. Arguing it to the courts is only asking them to undercut the law so you can cut in line and skip the part about convincing anyone. There is no argument you have that doesn't apply to siblings and polygamists as well

And yet court after court disagrees with your opinion. Do you think the same will hold true for incest? Really and truly?

Yup, cuz the argument works equally well.

If the justices accept for one, they must accept for those equally aggrieved.

 

[Seawytch]

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

 

[Pop23]

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Bigot much?

 

[Pop23]

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

I just checked. Marriage licenses do not require sexual intercourse, of course, if they did..........

You'd be out in the cold, right?

 

[kaz]

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

There is no legal merit other than you want it. Which is fine to argue to the legislature. Arguing it to the courts is only asking them to undercut the law so you can cut in line and skip the part about convincing anyone. There is no argument you have that doesn't apply to siblings and polygamists as well

And yet court after court disagrees with your opinion. Do you think the same will hold true for incest? Really and truly?

So?