Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

Start your own thread on gun control, friend, and let him respond to it there.

If you insist here, then you are trolling the thread and you know what happens when you do that.

Oh, no. I get his reason for asking. He just wants to know if my support of people making their own choices is universal. For individuals it is. It is corporations where I start to support government oversight. They can claim it all they want, corporations are not people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pop, who supports incestuous marriage. You? The Egyptians? For heaven's sake, grow up.

I do. Wellll...that's actually probably a bit overly simplistic. I mean I don't really support incestuous marriage for myself. I personally find it a little icky.

However, so long as we are talking about consenting adults, what I do support is every individual deciding for themselves who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

• If that is incestuous, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that is two women, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that's two men, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
  
• If that's a man and a woman, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that's a man, and as many women as he can get to agree to marry him, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me. Good luck with that, though. I have a hard enough time keeping one woman happy; I couldn't imagine an entire harem of women...
• If that's one woman, and as many men as she can get to marry her, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me. Again, not sure how successful one person can be at keeping multiple partners satisfied, but, hey! That's not my problem.

The point is, as long as I'm not being forced to participate in any of these marriages, I don't give two shits what other consenting adults do.

You'll notice I keep including the "consenting adults" part. That's because I know the fanatics. Once they realize they can't make me gross out over the idea of other people engaging in incest, they invariably move on to the pedophilia thing. That's why it's important to note, right up front, that there is a difference when one of the participant is a child, and not able to consent.

You call incest ICKY?

As a matter of fact I do. You see that is the really cool thing about actually thinking, and making choices. I can support your right to make a choice with my dying breath, while still recognizing that your choice is one that I, personally, would never make.

Thinking is cool!!!!

OK what is your position on gun control?

National background checks on all sales, and a ban on future sales of automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, and limiting clips to 10 rounds. (I'm flexible on that clip size).

Now, notice I said future sales. I do not, and have never, rounding up guns. Look you spent your hard-earned money for your weapons, and they were perfectly legal when you bought them. It would be unreasonable for someone to come along and say, "Hey! You gotta give that up,"

This of course, is dependent on the de-militarization of our police forces. If we are not willing to do that, trust me when I say that I have an entirely different view on gun control.

I'm a consenting adult, and I consent to buy any firearm I can afford but you want to selective restrict my rights from them.
You are a ******* hypocrite

 

[Czernobog]

I do. Wellll...that's actually probably a bit overly simplistic. I mean I don't really support incestuous marriage for myself. I personally find it a little icky.

However, so long as we are talking about consenting adults, what I do support is every individual deciding for themselves who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

• If that is incestuous, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that is two women, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that's two men, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
  
• If that's a man and a woman, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that's a man, and as many women as he can get to agree to marry him, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me. Good luck with that, though. I have a hard enough time keeping one woman happy; I couldn't imagine an entire harem of women...
• If that's one woman, and as many men as she can get to marry her, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me. Again, not sure how successful one person can be at keeping multiple partners satisfied, but, hey! That's not my problem.

The point is, as long as I'm not being forced to participate in any of these marriages, I don't give two shits what other consenting adults do.

You'll notice I keep including the "consenting adults" part. That's because I know the fanatics. Once they realize they can't make me gross out over the idea of other people engaging in incest, they invariably move on to the pedophilia thing. That's why it's important to note, right up front, that there is a difference when one of the participant is a child, and not able to consent.

You call incest ICKY?

As a matter of fact I do. You see that is the really cool thing about actually thinking, and making choices. I can support your right to make a choice with my dying breath, while still recognizing that your choice is one that I, personally, would never make.

Thinking is cool!!!!

OK what is your position on gun control?

National background checks on all sales, and a ban on future sales of automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, and limiting clips to 10 rounds. (I'm flexible on that clip size).

Now, notice I said future sales. I do not, and have never, rounding up guns. Look you spent your hard-earned money for your weapons, and they were perfectly legal when you bought them. It would be unreasonable for someone to come along and say, "Hey! You gotta give that up,"

This of course, is dependent on the de-militarization of our police forces. If we are not willing to do that, trust me when I say that I have an entirely different view on gun control.

I'm a consenting adult, and I consent to buy any firearm I can afford but you want to selective restrict my rights from them.
You are a ******* hypocrite

Only to those who are violent criminals, and nutcakes. You think that criminals, and nutcakes should have free, and unfettered, access to firearms? Really?

 

[Seawytch]

Gotta love those men and women in black robes. don't forget they BE THE LAW OF THE LAND

SNIP:
New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps…
Or as the left calls them, undocumented primates.


ALL of it here:

New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps Weasel Zippers

Why haven't you answered my question? How does my family and my legal civil marriage destroy anyone else's as you claimed earlier?

I don't care if you marry your dog. I'm talking about the legalities of all this and what it is going to bring DOWN on the rest of us in this country. I know you don't give a crap about anyone else. so don't ask me again

So be specific and tell us what horrible calamities are going to befall you because gays can legally marry. Give some details, Drama Queen.

 

[Plasmaball]

The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage. I thought I made that clear.

Two sisters can't procreate.

Try again

Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.

No they can't. Are you warped?

They would require a male

A third party

Oh, I get it , your argument for plural marriage.

I'm against plural marriage, obviously your not

You keep assuming that to procreate one must have a married partner inseminate you. That's not true. All you need is to have sex with someone of the other sex, or become artificially inseminated. As proof, I point you to the millions of single women that have babies every year.

Oh, I made no such assumption, I seem to be one of only a few that know how babies are actually made. The discussion was about marriage. You do realize that, right, and about married couples procreating within that marriage.

No same sex couplings have ever created a child. EVER.

That makes opposite sex coupling unique.

Every man, woman and child had come from those couplings. NOT A SINGLE CHILD HAD EVER BEEN PRODUCED FROM SAME SEX MASTURBATION.

you are still going on about this....Doing exactly what i said you would do.

 

[Czernobog]

Pop, who supports incestuous marriage. You? The Egyptians? For heaven's sake, grow up.

I do. Wellll...that's actually probably a bit overly simplistic. I mean I don't really support incestuous marriage for myself. I personally find it a little icky.

However, so long as we are talking about consenting adults, what I do support is every individual deciding for themselves who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

• If that is incestuous, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that is two women, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that's two men, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
  
• If that's a man and a woman, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me.
• If that's a man, and as many women as he can get to agree to marry him, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me. Good luck with that, though. I have a hard enough time keeping one woman happy; I couldn't imagine an entire harem of women...
• If that's one woman, and as many men as she can get to marry her, okay. I don't give a shit. It doesn't affect me. Again, not sure how successful one person can be at keeping multiple partners satisfied, but, hey! That's not my problem.

The point is, as long as I'm not being forced to participate in any of these marriages, I don't give two shits what other consenting adults do.

You'll notice I keep including the "consenting adults" part. That's because I know the fanatics. Once they realize they can't make me gross out over the idea of other people engaging in incest, they invariably move on to the pedophilia thing. That's why it's important to note, right up front, that there is a difference when one of the participant is a child, and not able to consent.

BRAVO

Waiter, a bottle of anarchy for the table!

Holy non-sequitur, Batman!!! Where the Hell did you get that from, Pop? I'm pretty sure that no one equates individual liberty with anarchy...

 

[Seawytch]

62% of the country will soon be able to civil marry someone of the opposite or same sex if they want to. We are less than 40% away from full equality. (As if you can't tell by the lost flailing of the anti gay crowd).

You already had full equality. And no, you are not (yet) free to marry your mother.

But you are on track to fix that

Sure I did because I live in an equality state. Now I can live in 11 more and still be legally married.

If you truly believe that the state can provide no societal harm in allowing close familial marriages, then your problem isn't with gays wanting to be treated equally under the law, you have a problem with the law.

 

[Seawytch]

And soon a sister, and because I want to be politically correct, a brother.

What a world you created aye?

If that is want you want.....You have the same rights as gays had to use our political system to fight for your right to marry your sister

I wish you luck

There ya go again, create the argument and expect someone to do the dirty work for you.

As always, no courage of your own conviction.

Do you believe your own argument or not?

It's really that simple

You are creating the incest argument by inferring there is some slippery slope

If you believe that slope to allowing incestuous marriages, go ahead and fight to make incest legal. Then fight to allow incestuous marriages. That is what gays had to do. Their slope obviously wasn't so slippery

No, a slippery slope requires a slope to begin with.

It's your argument , not mine, and in your mind (again not mine) it makes complete sense.

Live with it, your forcing us to

Total dodge Pops

It is your argument that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriages and plural marriages. If it is that easy, why hasn't it happened so far? Make incest and polygamy legal first and then you can argue about marriage

Where, on the planet, are incestuous relationships legal? Do those places recognize equality for gays? No place where polygamy is legal and practiced are same sex relationships also legal and in practice. There is no slippery slope.

 

[Seawytch]

Two sisters can't procreate.

Try again

Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.

No they can't. Are you warped?

They would require a male

A third party

Oh, I get it , your argument for plural marriage.

I'm against plural marriage, obviously your not

You keep assuming that to procreate one must have a married partner inseminate you. That's not true. All you need is to have sex with someone of the other sex, or become artificially inseminated. As proof, I point you to the millions of single women that have babies every year.

Oh, I made no such assumption, I seem to be one of only a few that know how babies are actually made. The discussion was about marriage. You do realize that, right, and about married couples procreating within that marriage.

No same sex couplings have ever created a child. EVER.

That makes opposite sex coupling unique.

Every man, woman and child had come from those couplings. NOT A SINGLE CHILD HAD EVER BEEN PRODUCED FROM SAME SEX MASTURBATION.

you are still going on about this....Doing exactly what i said you would do.

It's called flailing. They lost, you have to expect it.

 

[RKMBrown]

The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage. I thought I made that clear.

Two sisters can't procreate.

Try again

Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.

No they can't. Are you warped?

They would require a male

A third party

Oh, I get it , your argument for plural marriage.

I'm against plural marriage, obviously your not

You keep assuming that to procreate one must have a married partner inseminate you. That's not true. All you need is to have sex with someone of the other sex, or become artificially inseminated. As proof, I point you to the millions of single women that have babies every year.

Oh, I made no such assumption, I seem to be one of only a few that know how babies are actually made. The discussion was about marriage. You do realize that, right, and about married couples procreating within that marriage.

No same sex couplings have ever created a child. EVER.

That makes opposite sex coupling unique.

Every man, woman and child had come from those couplings. NOT A SINGLE CHILD HAD EVER BEEN PRODUCED FROM SAME SEX MASTURBATION.

First you say you understand the difference between being married and having sex and/or using artificial insemination to get pregnant. Then you prove that you don't understand the difference. Or at least that you are incapable of being honest.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You call incest ICKY?

As a matter of fact I do. You see that is the really cool thing about actually thinking, and making choices. I can support your right to make a choice with my dying breath, while still recognizing that your choice is one that I, personally, would never make.

Thinking is cool!!!!

OK what is your position on gun control?

National background checks on all sales, and a ban on future sales of automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, and limiting clips to 10 rounds. (I'm flexible on that clip size).

Now, notice I said future sales. I do not, and have never, rounding up guns. Look you spent your hard-earned money for your weapons, and they were perfectly legal when you bought them. It would be unreasonable for someone to come along and say, "Hey! You gotta give that up,"

This of course, is dependent on the de-militarization of our police forces. If we are not willing to do that, trust me when I say that I have an entirely different view on gun control.

I'm a consenting adult, and I consent to buy any firearm I can afford but you want to selective restrict my rights from them.
You are a ******* hypocrite

Only to those who are violent criminals, and nutcakes. You think that criminals, and nutcakes should have free, and unfettered, access to firearms? Really?

You said this
a ban on future sales of automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, and limiting clips to 10 rounds. (I'm flexible on that clip size).
Only those that violent criminals use?
Most criminals when using firearms choose hand guns
You are really stupid at this thing everybody has a right game

 

[RKMBrown]

It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass. It was not part of the argument that won. The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage. They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners. Do you understand the difference?

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

Here's a reality check for you pops. I was always on board with incestuous marriage. What is your problem with it, exactly? Why do you give so much as a single flying **** who anyone else marries? How does that affect you in even the tiniest little bit?

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

 

[martybegan]

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

Here's a reality check for you pops. I was always on board with incestuous marriage. What is your problem with it, exactly? Why do you give so much as a single flying **** who anyone else marries? How does that affect you in even the tiniest little bit?

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

 

[martybegan]

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

The constitution guarantees me the right to do business with any public business. And the Public accommodation laws already settled this matter.

And, I didn't run from shit. I'm dismissing you for being too stupid to be capable of intelligent debate.

It's not my problem that you are too stupid to understand how public accommodation works.

You are dismissed. Thank you for playing.

Where does the constitution say that? If the constitution forced businesses to do business with everyone, then I could walk up to a Mazarati dealer with a nickel and force them to give me a car. Or stores couldn't deny alcohol to minors, or prescription drugs to people without a prescription.

PA laws may say that, but except for cases on necessity their morality, never mind their constitutionality are seriously in doubt.

And congrats, you've ducked out of the convo first, you lose.

No, it doesn't, and you know it. The proscription against discrimination has nothing to do with the process of commerce. It has to do with you not being allowed to be a bigot. Try smarter.

An d I didn't duck out of shit. I'm dismissing you for being too stupid to be capable of intelligent debate.

So you refer to the commerce clause, then in your next reply dismiss it? Try to be consistent.

and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?

Talk about a lack of intelligence......

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's a reality check for you pops. I was always on board with incestuous marriage. What is your problem with it, exactly? Why do you give so much as a single flying **** who anyone else marries? How does that affect you in even the tiniest little bit?

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

No that means you probably have early onset of Alzheimers. Life liberty etc. are in the 14th amendment. Equal protection clause is in the 14th amendment. Commerce clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Thus.. public accommodation laws are legal per the commerce clause if federal, and per the 14th if state.

 

[Czernobog]

and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?

Actually, I misspoke there. You are allowed to be a bigot. You are just not allowed to act on that bigotry. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough there.

 

[RKMBrown]

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

The constitution guarantees me the right to do business with any public business. And the Public accommodation laws already settled this matter.

And, I didn't run from shit. I'm dismissing you for being too stupid to be capable of intelligent debate.

It's not my problem that you are too stupid to understand how public accommodation works.

You are dismissed. Thank you for playing.

Where does the constitution say that? If the constitution forced businesses to do business with everyone, then I could walk up to a Mazarati dealer with a nickel and force them to give me a car. Or stores couldn't deny alcohol to minors, or prescription drugs to people without a prescription.

PA laws may say that, but except for cases on necessity their morality, never mind their constitutionality are seriously in doubt.

And congrats, you've ducked out of the convo first, you lose.

No, it doesn't, and you know it. The proscription against discrimination has nothing to do with the process of commerce. It has to do with you not being allowed to be a bigot. Try smarter.

An d I didn't duck out of shit. I'm dismissing you for being too stupid to be capable of intelligent debate.

So you refer to the commerce clause, then in your next reply dismiss it? Try to be consistent.

and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?

Talk about a lack of intelligence......

Who said you can't be a bigot?

 

[RKMBrown]

and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?

Actually, I misspoke there. You are allowed to be a bigot. You are just not allowed to act on that bigotry. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough there.

To be more specific you can act on that bigotry, you just can't refuse public accommodation for certain types of bigotry. IOW if you partake in regulated public commerce, you have to adhere to federal and state regulations around said regulated public commerce.

For example, you can't urinate in someone's food, or refuse someone food because they are black.

 

[Czernobog]

Here's a reality check for you pops. I was always on board with incestuous marriage. What is your problem with it, exactly? Why do you give so much as a single flying **** who anyone else marries? How does that affect you in even the tiniest little bit?

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

 

[Pop23]

Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.

No they can't. Are you warped?

They would require a male

A third party

Oh, I get it , your argument for plural marriage.

I'm against plural marriage, obviously your not

You keep assuming that to procreate one must have a married partner inseminate you. That's not true. All you need is to have sex with someone of the other sex, or become artificially inseminated. As proof, I point you to the millions of single women that have babies every year.

Oh, I made no such assumption, I seem to be one of only a few that know how babies are actually made. The discussion was about marriage. You do realize that, right, and about married couples procreating within that marriage.

No same sex couplings have ever created a child. EVER.

That makes opposite sex coupling unique.

Every man, woman and child had come from those couplings. NOT A SINGLE CHILD HAD EVER BEEN PRODUCED FROM SAME SEX MASTURBATION.

you are still going on about this....Doing exactly what i said you would do.

It's called flailing. They lost, you have to expect it.

It's called warning. We lose you can't stop incest and plural marriage