Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights.

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I see you don't like testing your theory, so it's back to, cuz You say so......

I quite expected that

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I did, now should we apply the applicable legal standard, or are you the simpleton coward we all think you are?

Clearly you didn't- and you still just try to deflect- once again- the post you are running away from:

]Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Silly Goose, same sex siblings can't procreate

 

[Pop23]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason.

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew.


Shame on you both!

 

[Syriusly]

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I see you don't like testing your theory, so it's back to, cuz You say so......

I quite expected that

Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.

I did, now should we apply the applicable legal standard, or are you the simpleton coward we all think you are?

Clearly you didn't- and you still just try to deflect- once again- the post you are running away from:

]Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

Silly Goose, same sex siblings can't procreate

Once again- you disolve into delection.

Clearly you didn't- and you still just try to deflect- once again- the post you are running away from:

]Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.

 

[Syriusly]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason.

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew.


Shame on you both!

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

 

[Pop23]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

It WAS NOT a question before the court! You are a ******* idiot who does not understand how things work and you are too stupid to even know what it is that you don't know!

I'm a ******* idiot?

Dude, I know that the male end of a lamp cord goes into the female plug of an outlet.

Get my drift Sally?

 

[Pop23]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates

There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.

____________________________________________________

While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]

However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as consenting adults. Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not? Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?

Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.

But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?

Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Legalize Polygamy! Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason.

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew.


Shame on you both!

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

 

[Boss]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

 

[Syriusly]

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against- marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

Dedicated to Boss and Pop…….see if you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.

_______________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________
Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue:

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason.

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew.


Shame on you both!

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

 

[Pop23]

Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law).

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification.

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason.

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew.


Shame on you both!

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

 

[Syriusly]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

To be fair- you have demonstrated you have no idea what point anyone is making in this thread- not even yourself.

You are still butt hurt about homosexuals being able to get married, and inflict all of your nonsense on everyone else as some perverted form of revenge.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason.

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew.


Shame on you both!

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

 

[Pop23]

Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason.

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew.


Shame on you both!

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

 

[Montrovant]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

 

[Montrovant]

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

 

[Pop23]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

Well he is trolling of course.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

Really? You must talk to your own folks I can't count how many times I was called that, bigot and homophobe when arguing against same sex marriage, using these very same arguments.

You understand how hypocritical your post sounds, don't you?

 

[Pop23]

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

Well he is trolling of course.

You would like me to leave so I would stop proving how racist you are. Faux Progressive Syriously.

 

[Syriusly]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Pops is just trolling.

He asks for- and then refuses- any alternative answer other than what he demands that everyone else accept.

Hell he ignores the statement of a judge in a marriage case specifically refuting his very claims.

Pops cites himself, quotes himself- he is trolling.

 

[Syriusly]

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

Well he is trolling of course.

You would like me to leave so I would stop proving how racist you are. Faux Progressive Syriously.

Like you to leave?

You are as amusing as a one eyed baboon trying sticking his hand in a bottle to grab food, but unable to pull it out because the food is in his hand.

You are a troll- and it is amusing to point out what a troll you are.