It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!.

Once again you show your bizarre inability to understand 'Consent'

You do have the right to marry Kate Upton- and she has the right to marry you- but no one can marry unless both persons consent.

 

[Syriusly]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

 

[Syriusly]

To try and help you understand how this is going to go for you...

ummm .... here's how it went ...

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they dorespect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf​

Game ...

Set ...

Match!

... g'head ... this is where you *****, moan, and call for the deaths of Liberals everywhere...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Keys keeps repeating that to himself over and over, hoping if he does it long enough he will wake up and it will be true.

Keyes is insane. He genuinely believes that his subjective opinion defines all of reality objectively. There's no penetrating that kind of self delusion. But it is fun to point and laugh at.

Oh Keyes is quite insane. I don't actually read his posts, other than sometimes the first line.

 

[Syriusly]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's in the 14th Amendment and there are at least 4 court cases referencing it. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

It is NOT in the 14th!

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is there ANYTHING about marriage? IT IS NOT MENTIONED!

You're ******* deranged.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again... Everyone HAD equal protection. Nowhere were gays not allowed to "marry" but marriage is the union of a male and female. Gays weren't allowed to have a homosexual relationship and pretend it is a marriage.

Again you are arguing exactly what the State of Virginia argued in Loving v. Virginia in regards to mixed race marriage bans.

'Everyone had equal protection. Nowhere were blacks or whites not allowed to 'marry' but marriage was the union of a male and female of the same race. Blacks and whites weren't allowed to have a mixed race relationship and pretend it is a marriage'

Thanks for echoing the racist claims of the State of Virginia.

 

[Syriusly]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

Of course you 'don't care' that the courts have declared that we Americans have a right to marriage.

You must have been terribly upset when the Courts told Virginia that they couldn't ban mixed race marriage- because you disagree about Americans having a right to marriage.

 

[Skylar]

I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.

Okay, I call bullshit. No one is that ******* stupid. You have to have misread his statement or something.

 

[Syriusly]

I call you a homophobe for proclaiming that you believe homosexuals will try to pass laws allowing them to force you to have sex with them.

Okay, I call bullshit. No one is that ******* stupid. You have to have misread his statement or something.

Not bullshit- Boss is that ******* stupid- quote from the OP

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges...

I wonder if he has shared this prediction with his many 'gay friends'?

 

[Seawytch]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

I'm always concerned about the response of homophobes to gays marrying each other. They never seem to get the consent requirement.

 

[Boss]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People. That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

 

[bodecea]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

 

[Seawytch]

To try and help you understand how this is going to go for you...

ummm .... here's how it went ...

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they dorespect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf​

Game ...

Set ...

Match!

... g'head ... this is where you *****, moan, and call for the deaths of Liberals everywhere...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Keys keeps repeating that to himself over and over, hoping if he does it long enough he will wake up and it will be true.

Keyes is insane. He genuinely believes that his subjective opinion defines all of reality objectively. There's no penetrating that kind of self delusion. But it is fun to point and laugh at.

Oh Keyes is quite insane. I don't actually read his posts, other than sometimes the first line.

I sometimes glance at his capitalizations...to see what he's really incensed about. It's always something completely bonkers.

 

[Seawytch]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People. That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

Really? So when the people decided to ban handguns, the SCOTUS should not have ruled?

Loving v Virginia was "lawless"?

 

[Syriusly]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People. That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

I think I get what you are really upset about now.

For the last 50 years, you have been simmering with resentment over Virginia v. Loving- because you feel like that was a lawless ruling.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People.

Um, gays are people.

That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

Says you, making up your own fairy tale about the 9th amendment. Its a story backed by jack shit. Nothing in the 9th amendment says that its up to the people to determine what rights exist. Nor is there the slightest historical backing for your nonsense narrative.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Amendment of the Constituition

Notice that no where in the grand total of 1 sentence does it say a thing about the people determine what rights exist. Or the State deciding what they are. You hallucinated both passages. And your hallucinations are constitutionally and legally irrelevant.

Back in reality, this was why the 9tha mendment was created:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

James Madison

Bill of Rights: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Again, notice the utter and complete lack of any mention whatsoever of the 'people' determine what rights are, or the States determining what rights are. But concern that in the enumerating of particular rights it would disparage those rights which were not enumerated.

Exactly as I described to you.

Laughably, in defiance of reason, Madison and the 9th Amendment, your argument is that there are no unemumerated rights. And both James Madison and the 9th Amendment contradict you. Worse, the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the States. Nullifying your argument yet again.

You simply don't know what you're talking about...and are imagining an alternate history where whatever silliness you imagine must be right. Alas, you're stuck with actual history and the actual constitution.....which actively contradicts your nonsense.

Again, the Constitution is a list of powers. It is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor was ever intended to be. Simply destroying your entire argument.

 

[bodecea]

There is nothing in the 14th OR the Constitution regarding the institution of marriage. NOTHING!

And where in the constitution does it say that the constitution defines all rights? The premise of your argument is that only rights enumerated in the constitution exist. And that is a steaming pile of horseshit, contradicted by the 9th amendment.

The constitution does NOT articulate all rights. Nor was it ever meant to. Nor does the lack of enumeration in the constitution mean that a right does not exist. Nullifying your entire argument.

Worse for you, one of the legal basis of the Obergefell decision was equal protection in the law. Which most definitely is part of the 14th. And denying same sex couples access to marriage was a violation of that precept.

Nor is there any requirement to give special consideration to homosexuals or any other sexually deviant behavior.

Offering gays equal access to marriage isn't 'special treatment'. Its equal treatment. Special treatment would be criminalizing their behavior or explicitly excluding them from marriage. Which the court overturned.

If the 9th Amendment does anything, it says this is not any of the government (or the court's) business, if it's not enumerated, it's is an individual right retained by The People. That means The People get to decide to what extent it is or is not a "right" in their realm of society (aka: State). It's not FOR the court to decide... they have NO power to decide. Obergefell was a lawless ruling.

So...despite the 14th Amendment, you believe the People can decide in a state to provide the protection of set laws for SOME law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....but not for OTHER law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

 

[Pop23]

So you'd be okay with the country getting rid of the "social acceptance" of Christianity yes? It's also not "specifically" mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right by the constitution, same as electing to follow any religion (or none at all.)

What the hell? Is this some kind of game where you try to see how far removed from what I say you can get and claim I said it? No I didn't say anything about religious freedom which is clearly declared in the 1st Amendment, unlike "marriage" which you claimed it declares.

YOU said: In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans.

I asked you to show me where! In order for the constitution to "declare" it, you need to show where it says it and you've not done that. NOW... you want to change your statement to "considers" instead of "declares" and pretend that I am not going to notice. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4... so we actually go from "very correctly declares" to "very barely considers" ..and THAT is the fact.

And I don't care which person in a black robe said it, marriage is certainly NOT a "fundamental" right. That would mean it is at the core and foundation of you being human and I'm sorry to inform you but millions of people live as functional happy humans without marriage. If it can be considered the "core foundation" of anything, it would be Christian religion.

It's a right that the government cannot take away without a compelling reason. And while you are certainly welcome to throw away your rights, you have no business whatsoever imposing that idiocy upon others.

And what is the states compelling reason in the denial of same sex heterosexual siblings the rights afforded everyone else?

Is it because they are too closely related and their intercourse might create a tainted bloodline and defective children?

Two hetro sisters might just want to marry for the same reasons homosexuals wish to marry. Is that any more absurd? Or is it incest when sex is not in the equation.

 

[Pop23]

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can **** those beautiful knockers.

You're ******* deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I **** teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like ******* goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

Sadly, you remain too ******* deranged to comprehend gays were denied marrying the person of their choice.

That claim can be made by everyone. Whats your point?

 

[Pop23]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. In fact, they already mean different things in different states. There is no "written in stone" definition of when you are legally able to consent, nor is there any justification for the many arbitrary boundaries we've set and what constitutes an "adult" is a matter of physiology and maturity more than a date on a calendar. A date that somehow changes from state to state depending on what the government says.

So you are really not making a case with the "consenting adult" argument because that can be very easily changed and apparently, it can now be changed to accommodate sexual proclivities. I mentioned that my personal sexual proclivity is Kate Upton's tits. I think I deserve the right to marry the person I love, which is Kate Upton who is the person on which Kate Upton's tits reside. I'm sorry but I think I was born this way and there is nothing I can do to control my urges, and this shouldn't deny me the same rights as everyone else to marry the person they love.

It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights! If there is a problem with Kate consenting we can change the laws and let Kate's assistants consent for her in order to comply with the court... it's just a matter of some judicial trickery with regard to how we define things. I don't see why this would be an issue now, we've taken the wheels off when it comes to those pesky moral boundaries and anything goes... so I am all on board! Boss should be able to marry Kate Upton so he can **** those beautiful knockers.

You're ******* deranged.

The wheels have come off nothing and consent is still required for marriage. Meanwhile, you're inability to comprehend any of this remains moot in light of the reality that gays were denied the ability to marry the person they wanted to, which is the primary purpose marriage is recognized as a right in this country.

Again, gays had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which was what marriage was. You don't have the right to redefine marriage to include what you do. If I **** teenagers, I can't change the laws to make it legitimate by calling it marriage. If you like ******* goats, you can't change marriage to include that behavior and then claim your rights are being denied. Or hell... MAYBE now you can?

True, opposite sex, not too closely related in order to create a new family unit where none existed before.

Odd that it is written to imply that the important aspect is to keep family members from marrying.

 

[Boss]

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to....

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!" Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!

 

[bodecea]

NO ONE has the right to marry the person they want to! If so, I'd be married to Kate Upton! But there are ALL KINDS of restrictions and conditions that apply to marriage, it's not a free-for-all where people just can marry whatever they hell they please! So no-- you simply do not have the right to marry the person you want to! NO ONE DOES! Get over it!

What you want to to do is redefine marriage to include your sexual behavior. Then claim you deserve a right to it. Now, we could also redefine "consent" and my right to marry Kate Upton can be upheld. And I am totally fine with passing a special law for Boss to be able to marry Kate Upton and for the SCOTUS to uphold that law against the wishes of anyone including Kate Upton. If this ever happens, by the way, I reserve the right to call you names and impugn your integrity for protesting it.

Amazingly, you still don't get it.

It takes two consensual adults to marry.

How many more times are you gonna need to have that explained to ya?

And both "consensual" and "adult" are words we can totally redefine if we like. .....
It doesn't matter if Kate Upton objects, she's obviously a tittiephobe along with anyone else who objects to me having equal rights!

Is anyone else getting a little alarmed that Boss has no concept of why consent should be important?

Or that he cannot conceptually see the difference between two adults consenting to marry- and Boss forcing Kate Upton to marry her?

It IS concerning....just like those who cannot distinguish between consenting adults and hurting a child or animal that cannot consent.

No difference than someone who can't distinguish between a male-female relationship and a same-gender one.

ALL... I am seeing from ANY of you is this ethereal and air-brained concept of "consent" as some kind of established value that we all supposedly "know" and have no variance of opinion on. Keep in mind, 20 years ago, the same could have been said for "marriage!" Funny how our 5,000 year old concepts can change in a relatively short time span!

I know the difference between a same - sex relationship and a different - sex relationship. What makes you think that I do not?

And I see you are still struggling with consent. Hint: It does not mean you get to force yourself onto others.