It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Nosmo King]

No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.

And no one was allowed to marry the same gender... the law was applied equally.

Your point again?

Could you please demonstrate the actual harm of same sex marriage?

Are there tangible dangers brought by marriage equality?

 

[Faun]

Again, why is this change to marriage going to lead to all possible forms of marriage becoming legal when other changes to marriage did not?

Because other changes to marriage were not taken to SCOTUS where it was ruled that marriage was a Constitutional right that can't be denied on the basis of sexuality.

Legally, marriage has been affirmed as a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. Until this past June, that right was denied to gays despite there being no compelling reason as their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection were being denied.

Whereas the 14th Amendment's equal protection is not being violated for the other groups you mention. Everyone is treated the same. No one can marry more than one person. No one can marry a pig. No one can marry a child. No one can marry their sister.

Your problem is that you're fucked in the head. To you, being gay is "similar" to wanting to **** a pig .... or your sister .... or a 4 year old. That's why you're incapable of understanding why none of those will become allowed forms of marriage even though gay marriages did. Lucid people get this.

 

[Faun]

No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.

And no one was allowed to marry the same gender... the law was applied equally.

Your point again?

No, the law was not applied equally. Employing your twisted logic demands that blacks should not be legally allowed to marry whites as no blacks were allowed to.

The law allowed only straight folks access to marry the person they love. Gays were denied that right. So no, the law was not being applied evenly. This was clearly explained in Obergefell. It's a pity its above your comprehension.

 

[Montrovant]

No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.

And no one was allowed to marry the same gender... the law was applied equally.

Your point again?

Women were allowed to marry men. Men were denied that right based on their gender. Men were allowed to marry women. Women were denied that right based on their gender.

I understand the argument that the law was already applied equally. I understand disagreeing with the court's decision. Hell, as a 5-4 decision, the court itself was obviously split. However, none of that means that other types of marriage are automatically allowed.

 

[Montrovant]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

 

[Faun]

Again, why is this change to marriage going to lead to all possible forms of marriage becoming legal when other changes to marriage did not?

Because other changes to marriage were not taken to SCOTUS where it was ruled that marriage was a Constitutional right that can't be denied on the basis of sexuality.

No, you flaming moron. Legally, it had nothing to do with sexuality. It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

 

[Boss]

No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.

And no one was allowed to marry the same gender... the law was applied equally.

Your point again?

Women were allowed to marry men. Men were denied that right based on their gender. Men were allowed to marry women. Women were denied that right based on their gender.

I understand the argument that the law was already applied equally. I understand disagreeing with the court's decision. Hell, as a 5-4 decision, the court itself was obviously split. However, none of that means that other types of marriage are automatically allowed.

I didn't say all other kinds of marriage are automatically allowed. Did I?

 

[Faun]

No one is allowed to marry more than one person -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry a child -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry an animal -- the law is applied equally. No one is allowed to marry immediate family members -- the law is applied equally.

And no one was allowed to marry the same gender... the law was applied equally.

Your point again?

Women were allowed to marry men. Men were denied that right based on their gender. Men were allowed to marry women. Women were denied that right based on their gender.

I understand the argument that the law was already applied equally. I understand disagreeing with the court's decision. Hell, as a 5-4 decision, the court itself was obviously split. However, none of that means that other types of marriage are automatically allowed.

I didn't say all other kinds of marriage are automatically allowed. Did I?

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

 

[Boss]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

Again... for the millionth time... Consent under the law is easier to redefine than marriage. You're missing the constitutional point... I did not say "because 'a' is legal, 'b' must also be legal." There is no argument in that, it's just sheer idiocy. My argument deals with the Equal Protection clause which I am sure you are all familiar with.

This has nothing to do with consent laws.. incidentally, the very same consent laws which once made homosexuality illegal. Those can be changed very easily and they already vary from state to state.

 

[Boss]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

 

[Boss]

It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.

 

[Faun]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're ******* deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

 

[Faun]

It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.

It's not about sex. I can't help you're too retarded to understand that.

You've more than demonstrated you have no ******* clue why marrying someone of the dame gender can no longer be banned.

 

[Boss]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're ******* deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused.

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act.

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

 

[Boss]

It's not about sex. I can't help you're too retarded to understand that.

Yes, it is about sex. In particular, homosexuality, and legitimizing it through marriage.

 

[Faun]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're ******* deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused.

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act.

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

Like I said... you're ******* deranged.

I'm explaining why they're not allowed ... you're the one wondering why they're not...

"What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children? The ancient Greeks did this routinely. Even in the US, up until very recently, you could marry as young as 14 in some states. In Appalachian communities, girls were married sometimes at the age of 12. Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals? We can't discriminate, can we? Why should they be denied the same rights as you?​

 

[Faun]

It's not about sex. I can't help you're too retarded to understand that.

Yes, it is about sex. In particular, homosexuality, and legitimizing it through marriage.

You remain ******* clueless. It's about equality. You can't deny anyone their fundamental right to marry the person they love based on gender. Not based on sex.

 

[Boss]

No, you are wondering why they are not. But due to your G-d given limitations, you are incapable of understanding why they are not.

I'm not wondering why they're not.. you are.

You're ******* deranged. What have I said that would lead a nut like you to think I'm wondering why none of those other forms of marriage aren't allowed? Especially considering I tried explaining to you, to no avail, why they are not allowed.

Meanwhile, you're here questioning why they're not allowed. You really think you can transfer project your short comining onto others?

You are the one questioning whether they can be allowed, I am the one explaining how the Constitution works. You seem confused.

If you have, by law, distinguished a "group" ...in this case, homosexuals... as having a right to define their relationships as "marriage" and be legitimized by government as such, the same right must be afforded to similar "groups" ...in this case, other 'harmless' sexual proclivities. The only issue currently standing in the way is the legality of these other sexual proclivities, but as was pointed out, homosexuality is only 12 years removed from being an illegal act.

Now, we can look to all the case law surrounding how homosexuality 'came out of the closet' and became legalized... it was not a compelling interest of the state to prohibit it. The very same argument can be made for other sexual proclivities... most of which are currently illegal because of religious moral views.

Like I said... you're ******* deranged.

I'm explaining why they're not allowed ... you're the one wondering why they're not...

"What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children? The ancient Greeks did this routinely. Even in the US, up until very recently, you could marry as young as 14 in some states. In Appalachian communities, girls were married sometimes at the age of 12. Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals? We can't discriminate, can we? Why should they be denied the same rights as you?​

I asked and no one ever gave a sufficient answer... just that it's not currently legal. I am not wondering why, I know why, you don't seem to know. The reason is very simple. Up until the recent SCOTUS ruling, you didn't have the right to not be discriminated against based on your sexuality. We have many laws which discriminate based on your sexual behavior. These will now begin to be challenged. It hasn't happened yet, it's coming soon. As soon as those laws start to fall, those people will push for their right to legitimize their relationships through marriage just as homosexuals did. They will use your very SAME arguments.

 

[Boss]

You remain ******* clueless. It's about equality. You can't deny anyone their fundamental right to marry the person they love based on gender. Not based on sex.

They weren't being denied the right to marry! All across America, in all 50 states... homosexual males could marry homosexual females... lesbians could marry straight males... straight females could marry gay men... bisexual men could marry lesbians... transgender men could marry lesbians... straight women could marry transgender men... no one in America was being denied the right to MARRY!

 

[Boss]

It's about equality.

You're right... NOW it is! It's about sexuality being equal under the law. And the sexuality you find offensive or unacceptable has equal rights to the same laws. That's the part you are failing to realize because you're either a moron who doesn't comprehend "equal protection" or you're living in a hypocritical world of denial.