Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

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

He sounds hideous! (there is a hidden joke there... get it?)

 

[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.

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.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Sure is what Boss does.

And what you do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The straw men like Boss and Pop continue to dance.

 

[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.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Yet, an incestuous marriage in Maryland is one that is vaginal penetration between two people closely related.

Interesting that those that do not have a vagina, or marrying someone with a vagina should be able to legally marry in Virginia, then move to another state where they could be arrested.

Hmmmm

Houston, it appears we have a problem.

And still there is no explanation of the compelling state interest?

 

[Pop23]

The straw men like Boss and Pop continue to dance.

And Jakes a homophobe

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only problem is in your head, Pop. I support LGBT marriage, you don't, you are the homophobe.

 

[Pop23]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

^^^* right wing dupe dumbfuckery

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^^* right wing dupe dumbfuckery That is exactly what you support, Pop.

 

[Boss]

It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

There is no "grandfathered in" argument that I have seen. The only relevant argument is whether the 14th Amendment applies equally or not. Speculation IS useless, that's why we have to look at the Constitution and standing law to objectively rationalize.

What will be incumbent upon the state when the cases arise is a valid argument for "compelling interest" which no longer has to be rooted in "traditional values" because we've decided this through a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling and it's the law of the land now.

 

[Pop23]

The only problem is in your head, Pop. I support LGBT marriage, you don't, you are the homophobe.

Then why do you argue as though you oppose both Loving and Obergfell?

You do understand that the Strict Scrutiny rule of constitutional rights apply to this discussion, not yours that is the rational basis.

It was the rational basis that was used to argue against both Loving and Obergfell.

You are arguing support for the States use of the rational basis, and against Marriage being a constitutional right.

So admit it, you hate blacks as well as homosexuals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop, we all know that you and Boss are talking out your asses because you have nothing to stand on.

Keep dancing your straw men.

 

[Pop23]

Pop, we all know that you and Boss are talking out your asses because you have nothing to stand on.

Keep dancing your straw men.

And you continue to simply dance.

And you provide all the evidence required to claim you are a bigot, a racist and a homophobe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the puppets Boss and Pop dance for our amusement.

Even the puppets below are amused at Boss and Pop.

 

[Boss]

And you continue to simply dance.

Careful Pop, he's broken out the puppets!

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you continue to simply dance.

Careful Pop, he's broken out the puppets!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

There is no "grandfathered in" argument that I have seen. The only relevant argument is whether the 14th Amendment applies equally or not. Speculation IS useless, that's why we have to look at the Constitution and standing law to objectively rationalize.

What will be incumbent upon the state when the cases arise is a valid argument for "compelling interest" which no longer has to be rooted in "traditional values" because we've decided this through a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling and it's the law of the land now.

Oh I think that if you go back over this thread you will find numerous entries where someone said that if same sex marriage is legal, these other things have to be also.

Anyone who wants to make the argument that they have the right under the 14th to marry a sibling, or their child, or two other people is free to go for it,

Numerous courts have ruled that "traditional values" alone are insufficient to justify maintain the status quo when doing so bumps up against equal protection under the law.

Like I said...simple. Now I told you......you can go now!

 

[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.

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.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

Yet, an incestuous marriage in Maryland is one that is vaginal penetration between two people closely related.

Interesting that those that do not have a vagina, or marrying someone with a vagina should be able to legally marry in Virginia, then move to another state where they could be arrested.

Hmmmm

Houston, it appears we have a problem.

And still there is no explanation of the compelling state interest?

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.

 

[Syriusly]

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell and that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8. With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit. If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it will be required articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest- depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court- in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.

But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!