If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Mousterian]

Kosh, the fact that you are prepared to label gays as 'faggots', a very pejorative term, indicates a fundamental intolerance.
And, you'll never meet a 'sane one', simply because you're so bigoted, you cannot accept that 'gay' and 'sane' can refer to the same person.
Do you believe that blacks are apes?

 

[Pop23]

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Okay- I will take pity on you- since you seem unable to actually able to make an argument- and I will make your argument for you- and if you agree that is what you mean- I will debate you on it:

Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Is that the argument you are trying to make Poppy?

You have two questions on the table that you have yet to answer. Answer those first and we can move forward.

They are:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I tried to put an argument forward for us to debate- since you refuse to- you just keep dancing with that straw man- if this is not your argument:


Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Then what is your argument Pop?

Straw man? It’s your argument, making you dishonest.

 

[Pop23]

Coward. Say and do are two completely different concepts.

We have established you understand the concept of the State Compelling Interest. So simply answer the question:



"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

The argument is not what it says, it's the effect it has on the law.

Prior to Obergfell, you could easily make the Compelling State interest argument, and answering these would be a piece of cake:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

After Obergfell, the answers are not easy, hell they're impossible to answer and not admit the cause is Obergfell

So what were those compelling arguments before Obergefell?

Playing Coy now? Ain't you cute.

Supply the answers to the questions asked first, then we can work backwards if you want. And quit your damn running, it's cowardly...

LOL- you are the one too cowardly to actually make an argument.

Are you scared because you know you have no argument to make?

Answer the questions weasel

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Okay- I will take pity on you- since you seem unable to actually able to make an argument- and I will make your argument for you- and if you agree that is what you mean- I will debate you on it:

Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Is that the argument you are trying to make Poppy?

You have two questions on the table that you have yet to answer. Answer those first and we can move forward.

They are:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I tried to put an argument forward for us to debate- since you refuse to- you just keep dancing with that straw man- if this is not your argument:


Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Then what is your argument Pop?

Straw man? It’s your argument, making you dishonest.

My argument is that you have presented no argument.

Which makes you dishonest.

Why are you so afraid to post what you actually believe?

 

[Syriusly]

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

The argument is not what it says, it's the effect it has on the law.

Prior to Obergfell, you could easily make the Compelling State interest argument, and answering these would be a piece of cake:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

After Obergfell, the answers are not easy, hell they're impossible to answer and not admit the cause is Obergfell

So what were those compelling arguments before Obergefell?

Playing Coy now? Ain't you cute.

Supply the answers to the questions asked first, then we can work backwards if you want. And quit your damn running, it's cowardly...

LOL- you are the one too cowardly to actually make an argument.

Are you scared because you know you have no argument to make?

Answer the questions weasel

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Still questions- still not an argument.

Go dance with your strawman by yourself again

 

[Mousterian]

Buttercup, how do you interpret
Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Is this not explicit racism? Slavery is fine, but only 'others' can be bought and sold.

 

[koshergrl]

Buttercup, how do you interpret
Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Is this not explicit racism? Slavery is fine, but only 'others' can be bought and sold.

How is that racism, you ******* moron?

See, this is what we deal with. You imbeciles don't even know the meaning of the words you gibber all day long.

 

[buttercup]

Buttercup, how do you interpret
Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Is this not explicit racism? Slavery is fine, but only 'others' can be bought and sold.

The slavery that existed at that time was not the type of slavery that we think of… It's not the type that we had hundreds of years ago in the US. It was more like indentured servitude, and people would sell themselves into it in order to pay off large debts. Also, just because something is documented in the Bible doesn't mean that it is God's perfect will. We live in a fallen world, meaning that there are numerous things that God allows to happen that were not his original intent or perfect will. Divorce, for example. And numerous other things.

In any event, that was not about race.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Pop23]

The argument is not what it says, it's the effect it has on the law.

Prior to Obergfell, you could easily make the Compelling State interest argument, and answering these would be a piece of cake:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

After Obergfell, the answers are not easy, hell they're impossible to answer and not admit the cause is Obergfell

So what were those compelling arguments before Obergefell?

Playing Coy now? Ain't you cute.

Supply the answers to the questions asked first, then we can work backwards if you want. And quit your damn running, it's cowardly...

LOL- you are the one too cowardly to actually make an argument.

Are you scared because you know you have no argument to make?

Answer the questions weasel

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Still questions- still not an argument.

Go dance with your strawman by yourself again
View attachment 198952

Two questions you obviously fear.

Can’t answer, maybe because you know what obergfell did?

That’s what we thought

Go dance with yourself, you repulse everyone else.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Marriage is more than just a contract. I don't know what particular documents you have in mind, but mere disagreement on something does not mean that there isn't an actual truth.

The Bible. Polygamy was common.

 

[Pop23]

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Holy shit! are you on the Asperger's spectrum? First you could not get off of the procreation horseshit and now you are fixated on plural marriage. Is it possible that you do not understand that no one is arguing against it.? You are just arguing with yourself!

Ok, then there is the answer to how does same sex marriage effect your marriage.

Refreshing that at least you are honest enough to say that the gays saying “it doesn’t was disingenuous at best.

Thanks

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Holy shit! are you on the Asperger's spectrum? First you could not get off of the procreation horseshit and now you are fixated on plural marriage. Is it possible that you do not understand that no one is arguing against it.? You are just arguing with yourself!

He wants government out of it. I do too.

The fact that now polygamist still can’t marry is evidence that igovernment needs to get its filthy hands off.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. The Court would need to do some major tap dancing to carve out exceptions for extending rights to polygamists or sister-bangers.

But, it happens all the time, because the Court has lost its integrity. Consistent reason has flown the coupe and political agendas have replaced it. I am in no way as smart as the guys in black, so I know they had to have considered my line of reasoning on how to deal with marriage. They simply chose to ignore that reasoning because see above.

And in the end, it was fruitless to try and skirt polygamy and sister-banging marriage just to avoid the childish criticisms of the anti-gay-marriage horde. You can bet your ass that the Court is going to eventually be forced to expand marriage rights to polygamists or sister-bangers, as it should have done in the first place, and could have done simply by saying these few words:

Marriage is a contract.

It's shit like this that makes me want to put actual, practicing lawyers from schools OTHER THAN Yale and Harvard on the SCOTUS.

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Holy shit! are you on the Asperger's spectrum? First you could not get off of the procreation horseshit and now you are fixated on plural marriage. Is it possible that you do not understand that no one is arguing against it.? You are just arguing with yourself!

Ok, then there is the answer to how does same sex marriage effect your marriage.

Refreshing that at least you are honest enough to say that the gays saying “it doesn’t was disingenuous at best.

Thanks

Holy shit! You are on the Asperger's spectrum! That makes no sense in relation to what I said. How exactly does same sex marriage effect your marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

According to the 14th Amendment they need only apply for a marriage license and be granted one. You cannot elevate one exception-lifestyle group over any other. You know that.

 

[Pop23]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. The Court would need to do some major tap dancing to carve out exceptions for extending rights to polygamists or sister-bangers.

But, it happens all the time, because the Court has lost its integrity. Consistent reason has flown the coupe and political agendas have replaced it. I am in no way as smart as the guys in black, so I know they had to have considered my line of reasoning on how to deal with marriage. They simply chose to ignore that reasoning because see above.

And in the end, it was fruitless to try and skirt polygamy and sister-banging marriage just to avoid the childish criticisms of the anti-gay-marriage horde. You can bet your ass that the Court is going to eventually be forced to expand marriage rights to polygamists or sister-bangers, as it should have done in the first place, and could have done simply by saying these few words:

Marriage is a contract.

It's shit like this that makes me want to put actual, practicing lawyers from schools OTHER THAN Yale and Harvard on the SCOTUS.

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

Being the first makes people famous. For that reason alone it will happen

 

[buttercup]

Marriage is more than just a contract. I don't know what particular documents you have in mind, but mere disagreement on something does not mean that there isn't an actual truth.

The Bible. Polygamy was common.

Polygamy may have been common at that time, but that doesn't mean it was God's design. As I said to that other guy, just because the Bible documents something doesn't necessarily mean it was God's perfect will.

God instituted marriage between a man and a woman, you can read about this in Genesis 2:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."​

Jesus reiterated this in the New Testament, clearly stating God's original design and intention for marriage:

He said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.” (Matthew 19)
​

I just want to add that pretty much all the examples of polygamy in the Bible were negative, and in fact can be seen as lessons, showing that when a person goes outside of God's will, all sorts of problems happen. A good example of this would be King Solomon. He had hundreds of wives, including many wives of different religions, and they pulled him away from God. In fact, It seems pretty clear that his downfall came from that polygamy, which was going outside of the will of God.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. The Court would need to do some major tap dancing to carve out exceptions for extending rights to polygamists or sister-bangers.

But, it happens all the time, because the Court has lost its integrity. Consistent reason has flown the coupe and political agendas have replaced it. I am in no way as smart as the guys in black, so I know they had to have considered my line of reasoning on how to deal with marriage. They simply chose to ignore that reasoning because see above.

And in the end, it was fruitless to try and skirt polygamy and sister-banging marriage just to avoid the childish criticisms of the anti-gay-marriage horde. You can bet your ass that the Court is going to eventually be forced to expand marriage rights to polygamists or sister-bangers, as it should have done in the first place, and could have done simply by saying these few words:

Marriage is a contract.

It's shit like this that makes me want to put actual, practicing lawyers from schools OTHER THAN Yale and Harvard on the SCOTUS.

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

Being the first makes people famous. For that reason alone it will happen

Let us know when


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

Let us know when

Now. Read my last post.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let us know when

Now. Read my last post.

I did. It is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk