"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Syriusly]

Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?

I don't know about that, but I was pleased with your admission yesterday that one group being excluded from marriage due to procreation ability is a compelling state issue.

I am pleased that you continue to be able to come up with any reason for your opposition to incestuous marraige.

The question is why the left seems to support it?

The question is why you seem to believe that- when the only ones bringing up incestuous marriage would be conservatives.

Not just bringing up, they're obsessed with the topic. I mean, how many hundreds of posts has Pop alone dedicated to the topic?

They can't stop talking about incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.

 

[Faun]

It is the issue in terms of you injecting doubt on the reality that most Americans support legalizing gay marriage. Most Americans do support even if you can't see that.

No they don't Get your gay on and stop insisting everyone agree with you.

Seeing as how virtually every poll disagrees with you, what proof do you have that most Americans are against legalizing gay marriage .... ?

And why on Earth would I "get my gay on?" I'm not gay.

No one cares about gay marriage.

So prove it. You're even nuttier than you appear if you think I just take your word for it.

My word lol. Turn on CNN.

Why on Earth would I go hunting for your proof??

Either you could have proven your obviously fallacious claim or you can't. That you expect me to look for it means you can't; otherwise, you would have.

Yet more evidence that most people are in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

 

[Pop23]

I don't know about that, but I was pleased with your admission yesterday that one group being excluded from marriage due to procreation ability is a compelling state issue.

I am pleased that you continue to be able to come up with any reason for your opposition to incestuous marraige.

The question is why the left seems to support it?

Can you quote the left supporting incestuous marriage?

Or can you only quote yourself pretending to be the left. Because that's not exactly the same thing, is it?

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

 

[Pop23]

Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?

I don't know about that, but I was pleased with your admission yesterday that one group being excluded from marriage due to procreation ability is a compelling state issue.

I am pleased that you continue to be able to come up with any reason for your opposition to incestuous marraige.

The question is why the left seems to support it?

The question is why you seem to believe that- when the only ones bringing up incestuous marriage would be conservatives.

Because you can't make any legal argument that would lead to believe it ain't so.

 

[Skylar]

I am pleased that you continue to be able to come up with any reason for your opposition to incestuous marraige.

The question is why the left seems to support it?

Can you quote the left supporting incestuous marriage?

Or can you only quote yourself pretending to be the left. Because that's not exactly the same thing, is it?

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

 

[Pop23]

The question is why the left seems to support it?

Can you quote the left supporting incestuous marriage?

Or can you only quote yourself pretending to be the left. Because that's not exactly the same thing, is it?

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

Without the safeguard of 1 man to 1 woman, denying entry, WITHOUT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST is impossible.

You knew that, but your side needed it hush hush, until the ruling came down.

So Skylar, what is the COMPLELLING STATE INTEREST to deny these sisters from their rights to marry, NOW THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND?

 

[Skylar]

Can you quote the left supporting incestuous marriage?

Or can you only quote yourself pretending to be the left. Because that's not exactly the same thing, is it?

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other.

Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. There is none.

You hallucinated it. And then insist that 'the left' is responsible for your hallucination.

Laughing...nope. Quote the left supporting incestuous marriage.....or admit you made the whole thing up.

 

[Pop23]

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other.

Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. There is none.

You hallucinated it. And then insist that 'the left' is responsible for your hallucination.

Laughing...nope. Quote the left supporting incestuous marriage.....or admit you made the whole thing up.

Did Loving mention same sex marriage?

Hmmmm

 

[Pop23]

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other.

Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. There is none.

You hallucinated it. And then insist that 'the left' is responsible for your hallucination.

Laughing...nope. Quote the left supporting incestuous marriage.....or admit you made the whole thing up.

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

You also realize that this was not an issue prior to same sex marriage, right?

I do understand your need to market it this way, I would not want to blamed for the legalization of plural and incesturous marriage.

I think the politicians will drop gays in a blink of an eye.

You?

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?

I don't know about that, but I was pleased with your admission yesterday that one group being excluded from marriage due to procreation ability is a compelling state issue.

I am pleased that you continue to be able to come up with any reason for your opposition to incestuous marraige.

The question is why the left seems to support it?

The question is why you seem to believe that- when the only ones bringing up incestuous marriage would be conservatives.

Because you can't make any legal argument that would lead to believe it ain't so.

The question is why you seem to believe that the left supports incestuous marriage- when it is only you and your fellow Conservative travellers that are obsessed with it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other.

Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. There is none.

You hallucinated it. And then insist that 'the left' is responsible for your hallucination.

Laughing...nope. Quote the left supporting incestuous marriage.....or admit you made the whole thing up.

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

You also realize that this was not an issue prior to same sex marriage, right?

I do understand your need to market it this way, I would not want to blamed for the legalization of plural and incestuous marriage.

I think the politicians will drop gays in a blink of an eye.

You?

"I would not want to blamed for the legalization of plural and incestuous marriage."

Oh, if that were only the worst of it... the horrific truth, is that the Advocacy to Normalize Degeneracy did this as a means to get to our children.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you quote the left supporting incestuous marriage?

Or can you only quote yourself pretending to be the left. Because that's not exactly the same thing, is it?

You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if that refrain were in some way; on some level... at some point, a function of sound reason.

You see Reader, the would-be "Contributor" is quite mad, having no association with the light that provides the means for reason.

 

[Skylar]

How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other.

Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. There is none.

You hallucinated it. And then insist that 'the left' is responsible for your hallucination.

Laughing...nope. Quote the left supporting incestuous marriage.....or admit you made the whole thing up.

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there. Lets try the Obergefell ruling:

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

And exactly as I said, there's no mention in either. You've literally hallucinated it into both rulings. Then insisted that the left is responsible for your hallucination.

Smiling....nope.

So I ask again, can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? This is the third time I've asked this question. And you've given us nothing but excuses why you can't. The reason is pretty obvious: you made it up.

 

[Skylar]

Says you.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if that refrain were in some way; on some level... at some point, a function of sound reason.

You see Reader, the would-be "Contributor" is quite mad, having no association with the light that provides the means for reason.

Dude....you do realize that your 'reader' is just talking to yourself, right? You citing you while talking to you kind of eliminates the need for anyone else to be here. As you're both your own source and your own audience.

And of course, that wasn't the extent of my reply. This was:

Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. There is none.

Notice that you don't even disagree with me or even attempt to refute me. But instead omit any mention of either the WIndsor or Obergefell ruling. Your entire argument is based on pretending the rulings never happened. As if by closing your eyes, the world disappears.

Alas, we don't base our law on your willful ignorance. And both the Windsor ruling and the Obergefell ruling are authoritative. While your subjective opinion is legally meaningless. You know how you can tell?

All the same sex marriage happening in your city, county and State. Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How Does Licensing Degeneracy Harm Us ALL?

This is an example of the evil that Advocates for the Normalization of Degeneracy:


GERMANY, March 28, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As parents in Germany have protested a new pro-homosexual “sexual diversity” curriculum in their schools, homosexual activists have attacked them by hurling feces and destroying their property, according to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, which documents anti-Christian incidents in Europe.

"Protesters were physically attacked and it was felt that the police failed to protect the parents’ basic right of assembly," said a statement from the Observatory describing incidents at recent rallies in Baden-Württemberg and Cologne.

According to eyewitnesses, says the Observatory, "Christian parents were shouted at with obscenities.”

"They were spit at, eggs were thrown, and little bags with feces were thrown at them and their children."

“Pages were ripped out of the bible and used to wipe backsides, then formed into balls and thrown at the parents and their children.”

"Christians were deeply hurt in this process. At least one banner was snatched and destroyed in front of the eyes of the parents. Marshals were target[ed] with pepper sprays. Shouting by counter-demonstrator made the planned public speaking impossible.

Parents and children were shocked at the amounts of hatred and invective perpetrated by the homosexuals who the media have represented as 'Gay'.

"Up to 1000 parents; many with their children, came to express their irritation regarding early sexualization of school age children", the report said.


Gay activists hurl feces at German parents protesting pro-gay school curriculum report News LifeSite

 

[Skylar]

How Does Licensing Degeneracy Harm Us ALL?

This is an example of the evil that Advocates for the Normalization of Degeneracy:


GERMANY, March 28, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As parents in Germany have protested a new pro-homosexual “sexual diversity” curriculum in their schools, homosexual activists have attacked them by hurling feces and destroying their property, according to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, which documents anti-Christian incidents in Europe.

"Protesters were physically attacked and it was felt that the police failed to protect the parents’ basic right of assembly," said a statement from the Observatory describing incidents at recent rallies in Baden-Württemberg and Cologne.

According to eyewitnesses, says the Observatory, "Christian parents were shouted at with obscenities.”

"They were spit at, eggs were thrown, and little bags with feces were thrown at them and their children."

“Pages were ripped out of the bible and used to wipe backsides, then formed into balls and thrown at the parents and their children.”

"Christians were deeply hurt in this process. At least one banner was snatched and destroyed in front of the eyes of the parents. Marshals were target[ed] with pepper sprays. Shouting by counter-demonstrator made the planned public speaking partly impossible."

Parents and children were shocked at the amount of the hatred and invective perpetrated by the Homosexuals who the media has represented as 'Gay'.

"Up to 1000 parents, many with their children, came to express their irritation regarding early sexualization of school children," the report said.

Gay activists hurl feces at German parents protesting pro-gay school curriculum report News LifeSite

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with gay marriage being legalized in the US?

And how is this hurting you personally?

 

[Skylar]

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there.

Oh that is SO true.

Of course, there is also nothing in there about Homosexuals, same sex unions... . Yet you claim that such is the basis for licensing degeneracy in Obergefell.

There's nothing about homosexuals or same sex unions in the Windsor ruling? Really?

Have you actually read the Windsor ruling? Because that's pretty much all its about: whether or not the Federal Government has to recognize same sex marriages performed in States that have recognized them. Edith Windsor, the woman the ruling was named after, is a lesbian.

You really don't know this?

Really?

Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence... such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.

But in reality, you're not the arbiter or what 'truth' is. You're just offering us your personal opinion. Which is irrelevant to the law. You citing yourself as the law is no more relevant than you citing yourself as god, nature, or any of your other Appeal to Authority fallacies.

You know how you can tell?

All the gay marriage that's happening in all 50 states. Including yours. And your complete and glorious inability to do anything about it. That's how irrelevant you are to anyone else's marriage.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there.

Oh that is SO true.

Of course, there is also nothing in there about licensing degeneracy by divining a fundamental right to marriage... . Yet you claim that such is the basis for licensing degeneracy in Obergefell.

All the 'licensing degeracy babble', I'll leave to you and your imagination. The Obergefell did recognize the right to marry:

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.


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

Remember, you've never actually read these rulings, don't understand the law, the 14th amendment, or have the slighest clue what you're talking about. And it tends to hamper your ability to tell us what is in rulings.

You'll notice, however....there's not the slightest mention of 'incestuous marriage' anywhere in either the Windsor or Obergefell ruling.

And this despite Windsor stating in unambiguous terms that standards of behavior, this the standards regarding marriage was a fundamental issue which are regulated by the respective states.

Ah, but your argument breaks in the same place it always does: constituitional guarantees. You always pretend these don't exist, omitting any mention of them. Alas, the Windsor ruling didn't do either:

, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,”.

And its these constitutional guarantees where your argument broke. As state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And if a state marriage law violates such guarantees, its invalid.

With Obergefell finding that State same sex marriage bans did indeed violate those guarantees. You can ignore individual rights if you wish. But you can't make the court ignore them.

Also remember that you still haven't read the Windsor ruling. While I have. That's how I'm always able to counter your ignorance with a better command of the topic. And why my predictions of the Obergefell ruling were astonishingly accurate. While you got every single detail wrong.

See how that works?

Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence... such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.

You citing you is neither truth nor the law. Leaving you with nothing but your subjective personal opinion. Which is legally meaningless.

As always.

 

[Skylar]

If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there.

Oh that is SO true.

Of course, there is also nothing in there about licensing degeneracy by divining a fundamental right to marriage... . Yet you claim that such is the basis for licensing degeneracy in Obergefell.

And this despite Windsor stating in unambiguous terms that standards of behavior, this the standards regarding marriage was a fundamental issue which are regulated by the respective states.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence... such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.

And you just blinked. You're back to spamming. Which will be followed by random declarations of victory......ending in a rout. Do ever get tired of running from me?

I've quoted Obergefell recognizing the right to marry, I've quoted Windsor recognizing that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Ending both of your arguments so completely.....that all you can do is pretend that no such quotes exist and omit any mention of them.

That was easy.