Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Skylar]

You were looking in the mirror when you said that. Right?

No. I was thinking about the litany of post of unprecedented stupidity that appear here under your name. You are, literally, the only person who has ever thought about having people who claim discrimination having to prove that they are in the group being discriminated against through DNA testing. You would deny the two men who tried for weeks to obtain a marriage license any relief in court because, according to you, they really cannot prove they are gay. And you sincerely have no idea how fucking stupid that is.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Laughing....I thought the "APA professional' standard as the only way someone could know their own sexual orientation was adorable though.

Which appears where exactly in the string?

Voices in your head again?

You were citing voices in your head in post 1741? I mean, it was just this morning.

You forgot already?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Required for what?

The question was actually pretty simple.

Yet when I asked you what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble had with any issue being discussed.......you didn't have a simple answer. You just ran.

As 'gay' isn't a requirement of any kind of marriage.

You need to answer a question prior to asking.

Nice deflection. You clearly have no answer for what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble has with any thing we're discussing. Which is why you keep running.

So much for 'simple'. Your rout and excuses keep getting more convoluted.

You mad bro?

I asked the question, which remains unanswered. You want a conversation about something else? Go for it.

 

[Skylar]

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Given that I've never made the argument that sex is a requirement of marriage....you're just beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

If same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy.....why has no state legalized incest marriage or polygamy?

So your record is 0 for 50. Twice. So much for your predictions.

The state can't sanction illegal activity.

But they can find that illegal activity is, in fact, legal. As they did with interracial marriage bans.

Yet not once, in any state....has any of your predictions ever come to pass? How do you reconcile the utter and inept failure of you every assumption regarding the 'implications' of same sex marriage with the actual historical outcome?

I mean, same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 11 years. And still, nothing you've predicted has ever happened.

Are all your predictions this......useless?

 

[Pop23]

No. I was thinking about the litany of post of unprecedented stupidity that appear here under your name. You are, literally, the only person who has ever thought about having people who claim discrimination having to prove that they are in the group being discriminated against through DNA testing. You would deny the two men who tried for weeks to obtain a marriage license any relief in court because, according to you, they really cannot prove they are gay. And you sincerely have no idea how fucking stupid that is.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Laughing....I thought the "APA professional' standard as the only way someone could know their own sexual orientation was adorable though.

Which appears where exactly in the string?

Voices in your head again?

You were citing voices in your head in post 1741? I mean, it was just this morning.

You forgot already?

Go back and add that to the relevent string then.

Doing so on this one just makes you look a bit strange. Don't ya think?

 

[Skylar]

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Required for what?

The question was actually pretty simple.

Yet when I asked you what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble had with any issue being discussed.......you didn't have a simple answer. You just ran.

As 'gay' isn't a requirement of any kind of marriage.

You need to answer a question prior to asking.

Nice deflection. You clearly have no answer for what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble has with any thing we're discussing. Which is why you keep running.

So much for 'simple'. Your rout and excuses keep getting more convoluted.

You mad bro?

I asked the question, which remains unanswered. You want a conversation about something else? Go for it.

You won't touch my question with a 10 foot pole, will you?

What relevance does your 'verify the gay' standard have with the thread? Even you seem incapable of providing us with the slightest factual connection.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

 

[Pop23]

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Given that I've never made the argument that sex is a requirement of marriage....you're just beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

If same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy.....why has no state legalized incest marriage or polygamy?

So your record is 0 for 50. Twice. So much for your predictions.

The state can't sanction illegal activity.

But they can find that illegal activity is, in fact, legal. As they did with interracial marriage bans.

Yet not once, in any state....has any of your predictions ever come to pass? How do you reconcile the utter and inept failure of you every assumption regarding the 'implications' of same sex marriage with the actual historical outcome?

I mean, same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 11 years. And still, nothing you've predicted has ever happened.

Are all your predictions this......useless?

What exactly do you claim I said?

That same sex sibling marriage would be legal? Dude, that happened in Iowa in 2009.

Get with the times

 

[Skylar]

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Laughing....I thought the "APA professional' standard as the only way someone could know their own sexual orientation was adorable though.

Which appears where exactly in the string?

Voices in your head again?

You were citing voices in your head in post 1741? I mean, it was just this morning.

You forgot already?

Go back and add that to the relevent string then.

Doing so on this one just makes you look a bit strange. Don't ya think?

So you're claiming that there's no mention of APA professionals and the verification of sexual orientation in post 1741? It was only this morning.

Because I'm looking at both right now. With you quoting Silo's amusing piece of pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

Did you just not read what you were quoting? Or is your memory genuinely that bad?

 

[Pop23]

Required for what?

The question was actually pretty simple.

Yet when I asked you what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble had with any issue being discussed.......you didn't have a simple answer. You just ran.

As 'gay' isn't a requirement of any kind of marriage.

You need to answer a question prior to asking.

Nice deflection. You clearly have no answer for what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble has with any thing we're discussing. Which is why you keep running.

So much for 'simple'. Your rout and excuses keep getting more convoluted.

You mad bro?

I asked the question, which remains unanswered. You want a conversation about something else? Go for it.

You won't touch my question with a 10 foot pole, will you?

What relevance does your 'verify the gay' standard have with the thread? Even you seem incapable of providing us with the slightest factual connection.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

The king of tears wants to add questions and no answers.

 

[Skylar]

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Given that I've never made the argument that sex is a requirement of marriage....you're just beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

If same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy.....why has no state legalized incest marriage or polygamy?

So your record is 0 for 50. Twice. So much for your predictions.

The state can't sanction illegal activity.

But they can find that illegal activity is, in fact, legal. As they did with interracial marriage bans.

Yet not once, in any state....has any of your predictions ever come to pass? How do you reconcile the utter and inept failure of you every assumption regarding the 'implications' of same sex marriage with the actual historical outcome?

I mean, same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 11 years. And still, nothing you've predicted has ever happened.

Are all your predictions this......useless?

What exactly do you claim I said?

That same sex sibling marriage would be legal? Dude, that happened in Iowa in 2009.

Get with the times

Show us any evidence that incest marriage has occurred once in Iowa.

If you're claiming its happening, it should be remarkably easy for you to verify that it actually happened.

Or you can keep giving us excuses for why you can't possibly back up your claims.

Either are worth a giggle. Pick one.

 

[Faun]

No, but you also don't express appreciation for me showing how retarded you are for not being able to comprehend the law no longer exists as written. Parts were nullified by Supreme Court rulings. Sadly, understanding that is above your pay grade.

Cite the part if the ISC or USSC ruling stating such.

You posted the answer. The proposed legislation making same sex family marriage illegal.

If it's already illegal then there would be no need now, would there.

Boom

You lose on the same point yet again.

If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.



If the law was still valid as written, men would not be allowed to marry men. Women wouldn't be allowed to marry women.

The point being?

It is your argument that either the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

You are then to prove your nonsense by citing the part of the ruling that does so.....

But your obviously just making shit up or you could.

BOOM

You lose again

Why on Earth does anyone care what you see?

Prove it.

Prove your argument?

Why, it's a lost cause unless you can cite the ISC or USSC ruling changing Iowas code 595 by anything more than the genders of consenting parties.

But obviously you can't.

But you sure can whine!

A championship caliber whiner you are indeed.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

 

[Pop23]

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Laughing....I thought the "APA professional' standard as the only way someone could know their own sexual orientation was adorable though.

Which appears where exactly in the string?

Voices in your head again?

You were citing voices in your head in post 1741? I mean, it was just this morning.

You forgot already?

Go back and add that to the relevent string then.

Doing so on this one just makes you look a bit strange. Don't ya think?

So you're claiming that there's no mention of APA professionals and the verification of sexual orientation in post 1741? It was only this morning.

Because I'm looking at both right now. With you quoting Silo's amusing piece of pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

Did you just not read what you were quoting? Or is your memory genuinely that bad?

Not claiming anything Nancy. I'm claiming your comment in a string that was not THAT string makes you look looney.

Oh wait, I guess I am claiming you're looney, so there's that

 

[Skylar]

Yet when I asked you what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble had with any issue being discussed.......you didn't have a simple answer. You just ran.

As 'gay' isn't a requirement of any kind of marriage.

You need to answer a question prior to asking.

Nice deflection. You clearly have no answer for what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble has with any thing we're discussing. Which is why you keep running.

So much for 'simple'. Your rout and excuses keep getting more convoluted.

You mad bro?

I asked the question, which remains unanswered. You want a conversation about something else? Go for it.

You won't touch my question with a 10 foot pole, will you?

What relevance does your 'verify the gay' standard have with the thread? Even you seem incapable of providing us with the slightest factual connection.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

The king of tears wants to add questions and no answers.

And yet another evasion on how your 'verify the gay' nonsense has any relevance to this thread.

So much for 'simple'. Keep running.

 

[Pop23]

Cite the part if the ISC or USSC ruling stating such.

You posted the answer. The proposed legislation making same sex family marriage illegal.

If it's already illegal then there would be no need now, would there.

Boom

You lose on the same point yet again.

If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.



If the law was still valid as written, men would not be allowed to marry men. Women wouldn't be allowed to marry women.

The point being?

It is your argument that either the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

You are then to prove your nonsense by citing the part of the ruling that does so.....

But your obviously just making shit up or you could.

BOOM

You lose again

Why on Earth does anyone care what you see?

Prove it.

Prove your argument?

Why, it's a lost cause unless you can cite the ISC or USSC ruling changing Iowas code 595 by anything more than the genders of consenting parties.

But obviously you can't.

But you sure can whine!

A championship caliber whiner you are indeed.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....I thought the "APA professional' standard as the only way someone could know their own sexual orientation was adorable though.

Which appears where exactly in the string?

Voices in your head again?

You were citing voices in your head in post 1741? I mean, it was just this morning.

You forgot already?

Go back and add that to the relevent string then.

Doing so on this one just makes you look a bit strange. Don't ya think?

So you're claiming that there's no mention of APA professionals and the verification of sexual orientation in post 1741? It was only this morning.

Because I'm looking at both right now. With you quoting Silo's amusing piece of pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

Did you just not read what you were quoting? Or is your memory genuinely that bad?

Not claiming anything Nancy. I'm claiming your comment in a string that was not THAT string makes you look looney.

Oh wait, I guess I am claiming you're looney, so there's that

Anyone can just read your post....and see that the "APA reference you question is right there.

Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | Page 175 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See how that works? Now did you forget about your post this morning. Or did you genuinely not read the silly pseudo-pyche drivel that you were quoting?

 

[Pop23]

You need to answer a question prior to asking.

Nice deflection. You clearly have no answer for what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble has with any thing we're discussing. Which is why you keep running.

So much for 'simple'. Your rout and excuses keep getting more convoluted.

You mad bro?

I asked the question, which remains unanswered. You want a conversation about something else? Go for it.

You won't touch my question with a 10 foot pole, will you?

What relevance does your 'verify the gay' standard have with the thread? Even you seem incapable of providing us with the slightest factual connection.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

The king of tears wants to add questions and no answers.

And yet another evasion on how your 'verify the gay' nonsense has any relevance to this thread.

So much for 'simple'. Keep running.

Simple = Skylar.

Go for it. Explain why there is no objective and reliable way?

 

[Skylar]

If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.



If the law was still valid as written, men would not be allowed to marry men. Women wouldn't be allowed to marry women.

The point being?

It is your argument that either the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

You are then to prove your nonsense by citing the part of the ruling that does so.....

But your obviously just making shit up or you could.

BOOM

You lose again

Why on Earth does anyone care what you see?

Prove it.

Prove your argument?

Why, it's a lost cause unless you can cite the ISC or USSC ruling changing Iowas code 595 by anything more than the genders of consenting parties.

But obviously you can't.

But you sure can whine!

A championship caliber whiner you are indeed.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

 

[Skylar]

Nice deflection. You clearly have no answer for what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble has with any thing we're discussing. Which is why you keep running.

So much for 'simple'. Your rout and excuses keep getting more convoluted.

You mad bro?

I asked the question, which remains unanswered. You want a conversation about something else? Go for it.

You won't touch my question with a 10 foot pole, will you?

What relevance does your 'verify the gay' standard have with the thread? Even you seem incapable of providing us with the slightest factual connection.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

The king of tears wants to add questions and no answers.

And yet another evasion on how your 'verify the gay' nonsense has any relevance to this thread.

So much for 'simple'. Keep running.

Simple = Skylar.

Go for it. Explain why there is no objective and reliable way?

What relevance does your red herring have with the thread?

Laughing......keep running. Even you can't explain how your 'verify the gay' nonsense has a thing to do with the OP or the thread.

 

[Faun]

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Given that I've never made the argument that sex is a requirement of marriage....you're just beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

If same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy.....why has no state legalized incest marriage or polygamy?

So your record is 0 for 50. Twice. So much for your predictions.

The state can't sanction illegal activity.

Since there is no longer a requirement for marriage to be between one man and one woman, and there is no requirement for sex in a marriage, then no one can legitimately be banned from the licence.

Which was my point at the start of this, and remains sound legal reasoning.

Glad you agree.

Which is why your point is, and always has been, retarded.

Before Obergefell, marriage was between a man and a woman. Sex was not a requirement of marriage then but a brother and sister still couldn't marry. All that changed is that men can now marry men and women can now marry women.... But a brother can still not marry his sister. He can also not marry his brother.

 

[Faun]

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Given that I've never made the argument that sex is a requirement of marriage....you're just beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

If same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy.....why has no state legalized incest marriage or polygamy?

So your record is 0 for 50. Twice. So much for your predictions.

The state can't sanction illegal activity.

But they can find that illegal activity is, in fact, legal. As they did with interracial marriage bans.

Yet not once, in any state....has any of your predictions ever come to pass? How do you reconcile the utter and inept failure of you every assumption regarding the 'implications' of same sex marriage with the actual historical outcome?

I mean, same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 11 years. And still, nothing you've predicted has ever happened.

Are all your predictions this......useless?

What exactly do you claim I said?

That same sex sibling marriage would be legal? Dude, that happened in Iowa in 2009.

Get with the times

You saying it did proves nothing as you have no clue what you're taking about. Of course, if such marriages were legal, as you idiotically claim, you could prove it by citing even one such couple who got married.

But you can't, so you continue trying to bluff your way through the sludge you think of as your argument.

 

[Faun]

If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.



If the law was still valid as written, men would not be allowed to marry men. Women wouldn't be allowed to marry women.

The point being?

It is your argument that either the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

You are then to prove your nonsense by citing the part of the ruling that does so.....

But your obviously just making shit up or you could.

BOOM

You lose again

Why on Earth does anyone care what you see?

Prove it.

Prove your argument?

Why, it's a lost cause unless you can cite the ISC or USSC ruling changing Iowas code 595 by anything more than the genders of consenting parties.

But obviously you can't.

But you sure can whine!

A championship caliber whiner you are indeed.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Not my problem you remain under the delusion that I have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.