Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.

Pop just pulverized your argument.

What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Wow, you have one incredible imagination to have found that in the Constitution. Is it in the Article after the one that covers fairy dust and orangutans?
 
What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Bigot much?

She's not a bigot, pops, she just thinks your opinion is invalid and her's is right, she doesn't need any logical support for that, it just is
 
That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Bigot much?

She's not a bigot, pops, she just thinks your opinion is invalid and her's is right, she doesn't need any logical support for that, it just is

It's odd though, how they created the argument, then when it fits for something they think is icky, they can't defend it.

The best defense is that hetro siblings can procreate. That simply does not logically deny same sex siblings, who by the way can't procreate ( did you know that? Apparently they don't), the right and benefits of marriage.

I guess that makes them haters and bigots.
 
She's not a bigot, pops, she just thinks your opinion is invalid and her's is right, she doesn't need any logical support for that, it just is

It's odd though, how they created the argument, then when it fits for something they think is icky, they can't defend it

I'd say her argument is just shallow and self serving. There is no pretense of logic. You put forth an argument, get the courts to validate it because they can and bam, it's law
 
What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.

If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.

That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Wow, you have one incredible imagination to have found that in the Constitution. Is it in the Article after the one that covers fairy dust and orangutans?

It's called equal protection...but you knew that and are being intentionally obtuse. Your crazy RW fan base that important to you?
 
She's not a bigot, pops, she just thinks your opinion is invalid and her's is right, she doesn't need any logical support for that, it just is

It's odd though, how they created the argument, then when it fits for something they think is icky, they can't defend it

You put forth an argument, get the courts to validate it because they can and bam, it's law

That's the system the founders set up. Of course the arguments against have to be logical and valid or you lose your case. Don't be so upset gays are winning.
 
That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Wow, you have one incredible imagination to have found that in the Constitution. Is it in the Article after the one that covers fairy dust and orangutans?

It's called equal protection...but you knew that and are being intentionally obtuse. Your crazy RW fan base that important to you?

Another buzz word from the far left drones: "equal protection"..

Another word that exists in the far left vocabulary, but does not exist..
 
She's not a bigot, pops, she just thinks your opinion is invalid and her's is right, she doesn't need any logical support for that, it just is

It's odd though, how they created the argument, then when it fits for something they think is icky, they can't defend it

You put forth an argument, get the courts to validate it because they can and bam, it's law

That's the system the founders set up. Of course the arguments against have to be logical and valid or you lose your case. Don't be so upset gays are winning.

You should then post a valid argument against, which of course, would be exactly the same argument against SSM.
 
Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now
It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.
Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

Considering that the left counts on the slopes to be slippery so that they can use one issue as a foot in the door for all the others, this is fairly hilarious.
 
That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Wow, you have one incredible imagination to have found that in the Constitution. Is it in the Article after the one that covers fairy dust and orangutans?

It's called equal protection...but you knew that and are being intentionally obtuse. Your crazy RW fan base that important to you?

Bull, equal protection is when the law applies differently to people, it doesn't. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature. You have yet to name a single law that changes based on what you want.

But you're too butt lazy to do your own work, so you beg the courts to do it for you, and they are all to willing to comply because it fits their power obsessed agenda.

Word
 
She's not a bigot, pops, she just thinks your opinion is invalid and her's is right, she doesn't need any logical support for that, it just is

It's odd though, how they created the argument, then when it fits for something they think is icky, they can't defend it

You put forth an argument, get the courts to validate it because they can and bam, it's law

That's the system the founders set up. Of course the arguments against have to be logical and valid or you lose your case. Don't be so upset gays are winning.

Nope, wrong again. Actually judicial review isn't in the Constitution. The courts seized that power for themselves
 
That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz

These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!

Laughing my ass off!

Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Wow, you have one incredible imagination to have found that in the Constitution. Is it in the Article after the one that covers fairy dust and orangutans?

It's called equal protection...but you knew that and are being intentionally obtuse. Your crazy RW fan base that important to you?

Also, name an issue that I am conservative on that isn't libertarian
 
Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.

Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?

Hmmmmm

No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.

Wow, you have one incredible imagination to have found that in the Constitution. Is it in the Article after the one that covers fairy dust and orangutans?

It's called equal protection...but you knew that and are being intentionally obtuse. Your crazy RW fan base that important to you?

Another buzz word from the far left drones: "equal protection"..

Another word that exists in the far left vocabulary, but does not exist..

"Equal protection" to the left means special powers that allow them to cut in line and bypass the Constitution and the legislature and decree authoritarian leftism
 
She's not a bigot, pops, she just thinks your opinion is invalid and her's is right, she doesn't need any logical support for that, it just is

It's odd though, how they created the argument, then when it fits for something they think is icky, they can't defend it

You put forth an argument, get the courts to validate it because they can and bam, it's law

That's the system the founders set up. Of course the arguments against have to be logical and valid or you lose your case. Don't be so upset gays are winning.

You should then post a valid argument against, which of course, would be exactly the same argument against SSM.

Exactly. She cannot:

1) Name a law that changes based on what you want. I'm vegetarian except I eat fish and seafood (I actually am, not just suppose). So according to Seawytch, I should be able to fish during deer hunting season since I don't eat deer. If I don't ride a bike, I should be able to drive in the bike lane, I don't want to ride a bike. I should be able to smoke cigars in cigarette smoking rooms, I don't want to smoke cigarettes.

2) Make an argument to your point that doesn't apply to anyone who wants to marry their sister, polygamists, a book, a tractor. You can't have it both ways. You can't say I should be able to marry who I want. But no one else can unless they want what I want. JoeB131 is a narcissist, he should be able to marry himself.

It's beyond ridiculous, it's childish, stupid logic, and she calls me intentionally obtuse, She's just as I said shallow, self centered, lazy and OBVIOUS. I want it, waaaaaaa, I want it. But I don't want to work for it. That's all she's saying
 

Forum List

Back
Top