Killing Homosexual Marriage

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

States are part of the United States- but a state is not a Territory.

States have their own jurisdiction.

Don't believe me?

Read the ruling which overturned DOMA.

You're seriously trying to make the claim Congress only passed the law for territories, but not the states?

Are you really this stupid?

Reynolds and Tucker are binding on the entire country unless Congress or SCOTUS say no. To get me and saintmike on the same side is not easy, but WW just won a bi-fecta.

 

[Pop23]

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

If you understood what you were talking about it might help.

Jake is applying the Rational Basis Test to the compelling state interest.

But since marriage is claimed to be a Constitutional right, the Courts must apply the Strict Scrutiny Test, putting a VERY heavy burden on the State to prove there is a compelling interest to deny individual its Constitutional Right.

So Jakes deflection on an Internet forum might look good, but in the reality of Constitutionally protective rights.......

Sucks to be you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

That's already been done. Now you have to show the state is wrong. You have got nowhere near that, but keep trying because you are failing in terms of constitutional rights.

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

That's already been done. Now you have to show the state is wrong. You have got nowhere near that, but keep trying because you are failing in terms of constitutional rights.

If marriage had not been declared a constitutional right, then you might be correct, then the rational basis test would be the basis of the decision. since it is a Constitutionally protected right, you must use the Strict Scrutiny test.

That's how it works.

Using the rational basis test is what Virginia used againt "Loving". And the same reasoning you are using, which according to many same sex advocates, makes you a racist, a bigot and a homophobe.

Odd, ain't it?

 

[Boss]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the **** is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss and Pop simply cannot build a compelling interest constitutionally to set aside marriage for couples.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Jesus never says a word about gay marriage. Jesus condemn's remarriage after divorce- you know like Reagan, Gingrich and Trump- but not one word about condemning gay marriage.

The bible states homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. They didn't have gay marriage back then so there was nothing to say about it.

When will people realize that a 2000 year old book is not going to make references to things that have popped up in the last 5 years?

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop simply cannot build a compelling interest constitutionally to set aside marriage for couples.

Using your logic, and the rational basis test of the States Compelling interest rule, then Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right and the States have a right to limit who may marry.

Jake, why are you scared of homosexuals?

 

[Pop23]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the **** is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Because they appear to be stuck on tradition?

It's the only rational way to look at these homophobes arguments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss and Pop simply cannot build a compelling interest constitutionally to set aside marriage for couples.

Using your logic, and the rational basis test of the States Compelling interest rule, then Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right and the States have a right to limit who may marry.

Jake, why are you scared of homosexuals?

Loaded question fallacy. You are, though.

 

[Syriusly]

Jesus never says a word about gay marriage. Jesus condemn's remarriage after divorce- you know like Reagan, Gingrich and Trump- but not one word about condemning gay marriage.

The bible states homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. They didn't have gay marriage back then so there was nothing to say about it.

When will people realize that a 2000 year old book is not going to make references to things that have popped up in the last 5 years?

The 'bible' says that women wearing pants is an abomination to the lord.

5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

And like I said before- Jesus himself(according to the New Testament) specifically condemns divorce and remarriage. Conservatives like Reagan, Gingrich and Trump all specifically violated Jesus's instructions- and according to Jesus are all adulterers

And in the house, the[y] disciples began to question him about this again And he said tothem. “Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery against her, and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

As you point out- the Bible doesn't say a thing forbidding two men or two women from marrying.

But the Bible does very clearly forbid adultery- and Jesus very clearly condemns divorce- and remarriage as adultery.

Why then do some Christians spend their time attacking 'gay marriage' and not attacking remarriage after divorce?

Indeed- Kim Davis- she who said it was against her Christian values to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple- has been 4 times- according to Jesus- she is an adultress- why would any 'Christian' who condemns homosexuals marrying- not also condemn her for her second, third and fourth marriages?

 

[Syriusly]

See how that works?

You've now been added to my ignore list. See how that works?

Boss's philosophy when it comes to people providing him with challenging Questions:

 

[Syriusly]

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

Pop- still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Still all butt hurt that gay couples can now legally marry.

 

[Syriusly]

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again.

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland.

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head.

Let it sink in.

You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

You putting your fingers in your ears and going nnaaaaaa nnaaaaaa can't hear you' is not the same thing as no compelling state interest existing.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

States are part of the United States- but a state is not a Territory.

States have their own jurisdiction.

Don't believe me?

Read the ruling which overturned DOMA.

You're seriously trying to make the claim Congress only passed the law for territories, but not the states?

Are you really this stupid?

Congress passed lots of laws that apply or applied only to Territories.

Are you really this ignorant?

 

[Syriusly]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that?

Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

You fail twice in one post.

Next?

Poor Pop- still trying to get anyone to dance with his straw man.

Meanwhile- American couples are getting legally married- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

And meanwhile, incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages remain illegal in every state.

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that?

Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No?

Then your argument is without merit.

You fail twice in one post.

Next?

Poor Pop- still trying to get anyone to dance with his straw man.

Meanwhile- American couples are getting legally married- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

And meanwhile, incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages remain illegal in every state.

Incest is illegal

Have you come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage?

You can't?

Then you realize you are a bigotted homophobe.

 

[Pop23]

Boss and Pop simply cannot build a compelling interest constitutionally to set aside marriage for couples.

Using your logic, and the rational basis test of the States Compelling interest rule, then Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right and the States have a right to limit who may marry.

Jake, why are you scared of homosexuals?

Loaded question fallacy. You are, though.

Jake can't answer the question so instead he hides

That's what bigoted cowards do I guess