In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Syriusly]

Gay rights will win in the end. The Rabbi's of the world notwithstanding.

It's been tried before, failed each time

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

Note- Pops inability to show how gay rights 'failed each time'

50 to 2 in favor of Gay marriage.

Pop thinks that is 'failed each time'

 

[Syriusly]

If it ain't dimwit, then why is it an issue?

Geez, read what you post will ya?

You finally read what you were replying to, did ya, sport? Then riddle me this: if marriage is all about children, then why does Wisconsin require some couples to prove the can't reproduce before they're allowed to marry? And follow along with me, chief....making careful note of the words 'can't reproduce' and 'allowed to marry'.

Obviously marriage isn't 'all about children'. No straight couple is required to have kids or be able to have kids in order to get married. Why then would we apply a standard that doesn't exist to gays....and then apply it exclusively to gays, exempting every straight couple from the same requirement?

It makes no sense. And of course is laughably unconstitutional.

One demographic group has to prove that first cousins can't

Can't what? C'mon, champ...say it with me: First cousins have to prove they can't reproduce before they're allowed to marry. At least in Wisconsin. So if marriage is all about children, why then would first cousins ever be allowed to marry when they're legally forbidden unless to do so they can prove the CAN'T have children?

Easy: marriage isn't all about kids. There are obviously other, child free, criteria under which valid marriages can be formed. Eliminating any 'but what about the kids' babble regarding gay and lesbian marriages. If straight 1st cousins don't need kids, if childless straight couples don't need kids for their marriages to be valid, if folks past menopause, if those who are sterile don't....

......then why would gays and lesbians?

There is no reason. As no one is held to that standard. Its irrelevant to the validity of any marriage.

Gawd you b dense.

They MUST prove they can't procreate.

If it has NOTHING to do with marriage, then why must they PROVE THEY CAN'T

In you delusion you think it proves procreation had nothing to do with procreation.

That silly state grants opposite sex couples, that closely related as LONG as they cannot procreate

So procreation plays an important part in opposite sex marriage.

So, to attempt to make same sex couplings equal to opposite sex marriage you have now established that the AVERAGE same sex couple is somewhat (but barely) equal to our demographic groups:

1. Disabled
2. Elderly
3. Incestuous.

Bravo. BRILLIANT.

Pop- I will ask the question you dodged again-

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

 

[Syriusly]

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said gays could always marry other gays.

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said the law required people to be able to pro-create if they wanted to marry.

Pop obviously, right along with Sil, has nothing to offer in this discussion.

Link or it's a lie.

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

 

[Syriusly]

The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.

It is the only correct opinion. Gay marriage is not protected in the constitution as the lying left would like you to believe. Good going judge.

I think you are going to end up being very disappointed.

And I am okay with that.

 

[Pop23]

Gay rights will win in the end. The Rabbi's of the world notwithstanding.

It's been tried before, failed each time

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

I have no doubt you have a close and personal relationship with them all.

Funny coming from you

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, so far 0% of LGBT people have come out against gay pride parades in front of kids, or forcing kids to celebrate Harvey Milk the predator of teen boys on drugs.

Says you. You're just making up that stat from nothing pulled sideways out of your ass. And the record of accuracy for your rectal database is worse than guessing...

Well I've been waiting for you or one of your LGBT pals to post a link to an LGBT person who has come out publicly against the parades or Harvey Milk and so far.....BUPKISS....

Why should they, the notion is ridiculous, idiotic, and irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay rights will win in the end. The Rabbi's of the world notwithstanding.

It's been tried before, failed each time

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

I have no doubt you have a close and personal relationship with them all.

Funny coming from you

I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's been tried before, failed each time

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

I have no doubt you have a close and personal relationship with them all.

Funny coming from you

I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Stupid question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great question that completely undermines one of Pop's positions and reveals AmericanFirst to possess a third rate mind.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.

It is the only correct opinion. Gay marriage is not protected in the constitution as the lying left would like you to believe. Good going judge.

I think you are going to end up being very disappointed.

And I am okay with that.

Gay is satans answer to the true concept of marriage. I am never disappointed in libtards being stupid, it runs in their genes.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Great question that completely undermines one of Pop's positions and reveals AmericanFirst to possess a third rate mind.

Compared to yours my mind is golden. Definition of stupid is libtard.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

I have no doubt you have a close and personal relationship with them all.

Funny coming from you

I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Stupid question.

Apparently too tough for you.
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

 

[Syriusly]

The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.

It is the only correct opinion. Gay marriage is not protected in the constitution as the lying left would like you to believe. Good going judge.

I think you are going to end up being very disappointed.

And I am okay with that.

Gay is satans answer to the true concept of marriage. I am never disappointed in libtards being stupid, it runs in their genes.

Being insulted by a bigot just means the truth is making them uncomfortable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

I have no doubt you have a close and personal relationship with them all.

Funny coming from you

I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Stupid question.

Here's your sign:

 

[AmericanFirst]

The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.

It is the only correct opinion. Gay marriage is not protected in the constitution as the lying left would like you to believe. Good going judge.

I think you are going to end up being very disappointed.

And I am okay with that.

Gay is satans answer to the true concept of marriage. I am never disappointed in libtards being stupid, it runs in their genes.

Being insulted by a bigot just means the truth is making them uncomfortable.

No, it means you are stupid. Gay is sick.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Insults from the far right merely mean they know they are wrong.

 

[Pop23]

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said gays could always marry other gays.

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said the law required people to be able to pro-create if they wanted to marry.

Pop obviously, right along with Sil, has nothing to offer in this discussion.

Link or it's a lie.

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

I have no doubt you have a close and personal relationship with them all.

Funny coming from you

I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Stupid question.

Here's your sign:

Selfie?

 

[Silhouette]

Here's your sign:

Nah...the opposition to gay marraige [advocates for children] are just getting started. You have reached the proverbial "this far and no farther" tipping point. Our sign to your neo-sexual cult's unchecked illegal advances into our democracy and fabric of society looks more like this

 

[Pop23]

Here's your sign:

Nah...the opposition to gay marraige [advocates for children] are just getting started. You have reached the proverbial "this far and no farther" tipping point. Our sign to your neo-sexual cult's unchecked illegal advances into our democracy and fabric of society looks more like this

^^^^^This^^^^^

 

[Syriusly]

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said gays could always marry other gays.

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said the law required people to be able to pro-create if they wanted to marry.

Pop obviously, right along with Sil, has nothing to offer in this discussion.

Link or it's a lie.

Answer the question Pop

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

I have no doubt you have a close and personal relationship with them all.

Funny coming from you

I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

Stupid question.

Here's your sign:

Selfie?

Still waiting

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?