If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??

[Syriusly]

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Did the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups have to go to court after the blacks won their rights in a court of law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Why are you attempting to deny other mature willing companions equal protection under the law? That has been your argument so far and it violates the...

When did I attempt to deny anyone anything?

Still waiting for you to EVER manage to actually quote me saying any of the things you keep saying I am saying.

Perhaps you should reread what you stated in the first post quoted in this on-going post of quotes.

There should be no need for any mature willing companions to have to form a marriage of their choosing due to the 14th Amendment since it would deny Equal Protection Under The Law.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Still waiting for you to back up ANY of the things you keep claiming I am saying.

If you want to dance away from all of your idiotic claims about what I have said to discuss the 14th Amendment- sure I am willing to discuss equal protection under the law and the 14th Amendment.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Shouldn't have too.

The argument the SSM crowd used before the courts was for mature willing companions to marry.

Therefore all mature willing companions should be allowed the same rights to form marriage groups as they choose too as per the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

As a matter of fact I read all the ones here in Iowa and came to the conclusion that the courts have no right to place any restrictions on who can marry who or how they form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Do you really want me to go through the more recent ones?

I would be thrilled for you to actually do anything more than pull crap out of your ass.

So far, based upon your posts, it is very obvious you either
a) never read any of the actual court decisions- specifically not the Supreme Courts decision or
b) you just aren't capable of understanding the words that were written.

View attachment 50263

I see... When all is lost use the standard progressive tactic of maligning the character of the person.

How's that been working for the progressives lately?

What is lost?

So far you have yet to do more than pull claims out of your ass- why is it you just make unsubstantiated claims rather than anything based upon you know- actual facts?

And gay couples who are in love are getting married.

That is a win for Americans.

I see that you cut the last two sentences of my last post to you out... Having difficulties with that are we?

Perhaps they're not so unsubstantiated since you only care that you got what you want and frak everyone else.

The first thing a discriminating bigot generally does is deny their own bigotry don't you know.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Did the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups have to go to court after the blacks won their rights in a court of law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Why are you attempting to deny other mature willing companions equal protection under the law? That has been your argument so far and it violates the...

When did I attempt to deny anyone anything?

Still waiting for you to EVER manage to actually quote me saying any of the things you keep saying I am saying.

Perhaps you should reread what you stated in the first post quoted in this on-going post of quotes.

There should be no need for any mature willing companions to have to form a marriage of their choosing due to the 14th Amendment since it would deny Equal Protection Under The Law.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Still waiting for you to back up ANY of the things you keep claiming I am saying.

If you want to dance away from all of your idiotic claims about what I have said to discuss the 14th Amendment- sure I am willing to discuss equal protection under the law and the 14th Amendment.

Why don't you quit deleting things and just man up to your own hypocrisy and bigotry?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[FA_Q2]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

It shouldn't be a government issue at all. State, or federal. We don't need government to tell us how to live

That is the real answer but not one that is going to gain any real support for a long time.

Marriage has been enshrined in law and is not going anywhere.

 

[Syriusly]

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

As a matter of fact I read all the ones here in Iowa and came to the conclusion that the courts have no right to place any restrictions on who can marry who or how they form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Do you really want me to go through the more recent ones?

I would be thrilled for you to actually do anything more than pull crap out of your ass.

So far, based upon your posts, it is very obvious you either
a) never read any of the actual court decisions- specifically not the Supreme Courts decision or
b) you just aren't capable of understanding the words that were written.

View attachment 50263

I see... When all is lost use the standard progressive tactic of maligning the character of the person.

How's that been working for the progressives lately?

What is lost?

So far you have yet to do more than pull claims out of your ass- why is it you just make unsubstantiated claims rather than anything based upon you know- actual facts?

And gay couples who are in love are getting married.

That is a win for Americans.

I see that you cut the last two sentences of my last post to you out... Having difficulties with that are we?

Perhaps they're not so unsubstantiated since you only care that you got what you want and frak everyone else.

The first thing a discriminating bigot generally does is deny their own bigotry don't you know.

I bow to your greater experience at being a bigot.

Meanwhile- once again- I will gladly point out your fallacies.

You claimed that liberals were losing- the evidence is of course just the opposite.

So far you have yet to do more than pull claims out of your ass- why is it you just make unsubstantiated claims rather than anything based upon you know- actual facts?

And gay couples who are in love are getting married.

That is a win for Americans

 

[Syriusly]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

 

[Syriusly]

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Why are you attempting to deny other mature willing companions equal protection under the law? That has been your argument so far and it violates the...

When did I attempt to deny anyone anything?

Still waiting for you to EVER manage to actually quote me saying any of the things you keep saying I am saying.

Perhaps you should reread what you stated in the first post quoted in this on-going post of quotes.

There should be no need for any mature willing companions to have to form a marriage of their choosing due to the 14th Amendment since it would deny Equal Protection Under The Law.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Still waiting for you to back up ANY of the things you keep claiming I am saying.

If you want to dance away from all of your idiotic claims about what I have said to discuss the 14th Amendment- sure I am willing to discuss equal protection under the law and the 14th Amendment.

Why don't you quit deleting things and just man up to your own hypocrisy and bigotry?

Why borrow some cojones from a man and actually back up ANYTHING you claim?

So far all you have done is pull crap out of your ass.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If you want to dance away from all of your idiotic claims about what I have said to discuss the 14th Amendment- sure I am willing to discuss equal protection under the law and the 14th Amendment.

Fact is the court demolished the equal protection clause years ago when they ok'd affirmative action.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.
.

You think that's compelling? A felony conviction for pot gets yourgrun rights denied while a misdemeanor conviction for a violent crime like vehicular manslaughter does not? THINK

 

[FA_Q2]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

 

[Seawytch]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

 

[jknowgood]

"If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??"

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

It got changed for queers soon will be changed for siblings. Liberals decided to change the meaning of marriage. Congradulations .

 

[jknowgood]

Homosexuality is not illegal...incest is

Supreme court can change that.

 

[Seawytch]

"If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??"

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

It got changed for queers soon will be changed for siblings. Liberals decided to change the meaning of marriage. Congradulations .

When?

 

[jknowgood]

"If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??"

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

It got changed for queers soon will be changed for siblings. Liberals decided to change the meaning of marriage. Congradulations .

When?

When was queer marriage made legal?

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

 

[Syriusly]

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

You have yet to point out how they are 'identical'.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

When was queer marriage made legal?

Didn't you hear?. Unelected judges gave themselves the power to write laws. We don't need congress anymore.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

What does "convincing and persuasive argument " have to do with the issue?. The 14th amendment does not make any such exception.