Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Incest is a dog that won't hunt Pop, let it go.This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality. We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children. Marriage is not about them, obviously.Requiring that they be opposite sex is traditional, but it goes against an American value, equality before the law. Bye bye tradition, in this case.
Wrong. There's nothing unequal about recognizing the facts of biology.
But in only CERTAIN cases do we require that they can't. And we deny rights to those that can.
Doesn't work well with the whole SSM argument does it?
Same sex sibling marriage is a dog that hunts and catches prey. Just check out this thread.
Got the best of Ya running for cover.
Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.
The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Nope...nor blacks not being property or women having the right to vote...but they planned for possibilities.
Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.
If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?
The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.
Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a fuck what the law says or what logic says, just like you.
44 of 46 times? A judge or two might rule match your description. But you're describing virtually the whole of the judiciary. And they almost all contradict you. Including many Reagan appointees.
Laughing.......only our resident gay marriage opponents would be so desperate as to try and argue that the FAILURE of their argument in virtually every federal court is evidence that they must be right.
Here's a much simpler explanation: your reasoning sucks. The anti-gay marriage argument is a self contradictory mess that doesn't hold up.
Wrong, as usual.
Says you. Naked denial is all you have. And you can't even count.
44 of 46 times? That's not a 'liberal judge'. That's a vastly better argument.
Incest is a dog that won't hunt Pop, let it go.This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality. We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children. Marriage is not about them, obviously.Wrong. There's nothing unequal about recognizing the facts of biology.
But in only CERTAIN cases do we require that they can't. And we deny rights to those that can.
Doesn't work well with the whole SSM argument does it?
Same sex sibling marriage is a dog that hunts and catches prey. Just check out this thread.
Got the best of Ya running for cover.
And again with your bizarre obsession with incest. No thanks. I'll stick with the gay marriage. debate.
You know.....the issue you lost so utterly on that you can't even discuss it any longer. That same sex marriage.
Many, probably most, weren't Liberal, just much smarter than you, and therefore able to follow the spirit of the law.
More than half of them are liberal, moron. Obama has been in office for 8 years. How many do you suppose he has put on the court?
Says who? Remmeber, Brit.....you can't actually back up a thing you say. You merely make shit up and then insist we accept your imagination as unimpeachable fact.
Laughing....um, no.
And no, dip....Obama's been in office for 6 years. Even math is beyond you.
Remember, you're an idiot.
At least I can count...and recognize Obama been in office 6 years rather than 8. That puts me head and shoulders above you.
But tell us again how a majority of the judges in the federal judiciary are 'liberals'? Bush appointed 62. Obama has only 53. Wait......you're not really good with numbers, are you. My 4 year old niece had the same problem. Let me see if the explanation I gave her will help you.
Mr. Alligator is hungry. His jaws open to eat the biggest numbers!
6 < 8
See, 6 is less than 8. Lets try another:
53 < 62.
See, 53 is less than 62. So how are 'most judges liberal' because Obama's 'been in office 8 years'? Explain it to us.
Your math implies there were no judges already on the court prior to Bush. You're ignoring all the judges Clinton put on the court. You're also ignoring the fact that some of the Bush judges may have retired by now.
You're just not good at this logic crap, are you?
They believed that the pitchforks were good for the plowing fields and making babies, and that they should have no say in making laws. If they had wanted that we'd be a democracy. Laws need to be made by wiser men than you, much wiser.Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.
The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Incest is a dog that won't hunt Pop, let it go.This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality. We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children. Marriage is not about them, obviously.
But in only CERTAIN cases do we require that they can't. And we deny rights to those that can.
Doesn't work well with the whole SSM argument does it?
Same sex sibling marriage is a dog that hunts and catches prey. Just check out this thread.
Got the best of Ya running for cover.
And again with your bizarre obsession with incest. No thanks. I'll stick with the gay marriage. debate.
You know.....the issue you lost so utterly on that you can't even discuss it any longer. That same sex marriage.
Funny, I'm actually being inclusive and you get pissy
The paradox continues......
More than half of them are liberal, moron. Obama has been in office for 8 years. How many do you suppose he has put on the court?
Says who? Remmeber, Brit.....you can't actually back up a thing you say. You merely make shit up and then insist we accept your imagination as unimpeachable fact.
Laughing....um, no.
And no, dip....Obama's been in office for 6 years. Even math is beyond you.
Remember, you're an idiot.
At least I can count...and recognize Obama been in office 6 years rather than 8. That puts me head and shoulders above you.
But tell us again how a majority of the judges in the federal judiciary are 'liberals'? Bush appointed 62. Obama has only 53. Wait......you're not really good with numbers, are you. My 4 year old niece had the same problem. Let me see if the explanation I gave her will help you.
Mr. Alligator is hungry. His jaws open to eat the biggest numbers!
6 < 8
See, 6 is less than 8. Lets try another:
53 < 62.
See, 53 is less than 62. So how are 'most judges liberal' because Obama's 'been in office 8 years'? Explain it to us.
Your math implies there were no judges already on the court prior to Bush. You're ignoring all the judges Clinton put on the court. You're also ignoring the fact that some of the Bush judges may have retired by now.
You're just not good at this logic crap, are you?
My math implies that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You say that a majority of judges are liberals.
Prove it. I've actively disproven your 'Obama's been in office for 8 years' bullshit. And shown that Obama hasn't even appointed as many judges as Bush has.
You've shown nothing but the fact that you can't count. Try again. This time with more than you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about.
Not at all. Any two adults, meaning you got nothin'. Gay sex isn't illegal but incest usually is. That might change but it's gonna be a while and what happens in June when gay marriage becomes legal nationally won't change that.Same sex sibling marriage is a dog that hunts and catches prey. Just check out this thread.
Got the best of Ya running for cover.
Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.
The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Nope...nor blacks not being property or women having the right to vote...but they planned for possibilities.
Then you look pretty stupid citing the Founding Fathers as support for gay marriage.
Even if it does, so what?Gonna be fun watching those judges squirm when the first same sex sibling marriage case wins using their rulings as the basis.
Incest is an issue for marriage according to the law. No one gives a fuck about your opinion. You have made it clear you don't care whether about the right of a man to marry his sister, so your arguments about giving gays the right to marry are obvious lies.It isn't as far as I'm concerned, any two adults can marry. I suspect society will take an alternate view as it already does, of incestuous sexual relations, which is real problem.And it doesn't.The queers claim marriage has nothing to do with children.
Then why should incest be an issue for marriage?
Did to them, does to me. Learn American history.They believed that the pitchforks were good for the plowing fields and making babies, and that they should have no say in making laws. If they had wanted that we'd be a democracy. Laws need to be made by wiser men than you, much wiser.Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.
The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Pitchforks are good for making babies? They should have no say in making laws?
Was that supposed to make sense?
Incest is about sex, not marriage.Incest is an issue for marriage according to the law. No one gives a fuck about your opinion. You have made it clear you don't care whether about the right of a man to marry his sister, so your arguments about giving gays the right to marry are obvious lies.It isn't as far as I'm concerned, any two adults can marry. I suspect society will take an alternate view as it already does, of incestuous sexual relations, which is real problem.And it doesn't.The queers claim marriage has nothing to do with children.
Then why should incest be an issue for marriage?
Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.
The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Nope...nor blacks not being property or women having the right to vote...but they planned for possibilities.
Then you look pretty stupid citing the Founding Fathers as support for gay marriage.
Not at all.
"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Incest is about sex, not marriage.Incest is an issue for marriage according to the law. No one gives a fuck about your opinion. You have made it clear you don't care whether about the right of a man to marry his sister, so your arguments about giving gays the right to marry are obvious lies.It isn't as far as I'm concerned, any two adults can marry. I suspect society will take an alternate view as it already does, of incestuous sexual relations, which is real problem.And it doesn't.The queers claim marriage has nothing to do with children.
Then why should incest be an issue for marriage?
Who gives a fuck? They approved of owning slaves, and raping them. For all we know they would have hated Internet porn and microwave ovens. I couldn't care less.Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.
The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Nope...nor blacks not being property or women having the right to vote...but they planned for possibilities.
Then you look pretty stupid citing the Founding Fathers as support for gay marriage.
Not at all.
"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Bottom line: None of the Founding Fathers would have approved of gay marriage. Hell, 30 years ago almost no Democrats would have approved of it.
Did to them, does to me. Learn American history.They believed that the pitchforks were good for the plowing fields and making babies, and that they should have no say in making laws. If they had wanted that we'd be a democracy. Laws need to be made by wiser men than you, much wiser.Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.
The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Pitchforks are good for making babies? They should have no say in making laws?
Was that supposed to make sense?
I do. None of my fuckin' business.Then you should support changing the law to allow a man to marry his sister.
Who gives a fuck? They approved of owning slaves, and raping them. For all we know they would have hated Internet porn and microwave ovens. I couldn't care less.The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?
Nope...nor blacks not being property or women having the right to vote...but they planned for possibilities.
Then you look pretty stupid citing the Founding Fathers as support for gay marriage.
Not at all.
"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Bottom line: None of the Founding Fathers would have approved of gay marriage. Hell, 30 years ago almost no Democrats would have approved of it.
