Republicans are not for our constitution.

[Lysistrata]

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

There is no reason for the federal of state governments to not recognize a marriage. You, yourself, have stated that government should not be involved in marriages, and I disagree with you there since the law is concerned with things like taxation, rights to property, rights to make decisions for cometose partners, rights of inheritance, etc. These are all civil law matters.

Yes. I have standards. They are being met. But you are lying. Gays were not allowed to get married, legally, until the Supreme Court decision. Actually, there was a judicial decision that okayed the firing of a state-government lawyer who had a religious marriage ceremony with her same-sex partner. I am wracking my brain for the name of the case to post a link and can't come up with it, but I remember the case well.

If you want to get married, why don't you go down to the courthouse and get a license, and/or have a ceremony right there. If you want a religious ceremony, go plan it.

Marriage was always a religious rite. It was even wrote about in the First Testament. It was the same here in this country when it was founded, but as time went on, government got involved and adopted marriage.

So now that marriage meets your standards, everything is just fine and dandy? What about those of us who's standards marriage doesn't meet? And when the time comes when your standards are broken, what will you say then?

Property rights, inheritances, all that could be worked out legislatively without marriage. As far as spouse only visitation rights, that is not law, that is hospital policy. Same holds true with medical coverage. There is no law that states your spouses health insurance company must put you on their policy.

Yes, gays were always allowed to get married. Who tried to stop them? There was no law against it, it's just that the state didn't have to recognize the marriage until that SC decision. Now states are being forced to accept it.[/QUOTE]

So the states have to recognize marriages among LGBTs. So what? There is no skin off of anyone's teeth. Everybody now has the same under civil law. What these various religious sects do is their own business. Who cares about them? We're talking civil law here. Individual rights are individual rights. They are not subject to a popular vote. Why should a person be prevented from exercising an individual right based on some stranger's opinion? Go cry to your preacher-creature about your "standards." They have nothing to do with civil law.

And, practically speaking, you people who claim to have "standards" that are somehow violated by these people you don't know getting married, don't raise a ruckus when famous whores like trump and gingrich marry, commit adultery, divorce, marry, commit adultery, divorce, marry, commit adultery, divorce. You don't raise a ruckus about "standards" when phony "Christians" make no bones about chasing teenagers to con them into sham marriages before they have a chance to grow up.

The upshot is that we live by civil law, not the laws of any religion.

 

[Bush92]

They follow it as much as the dems.......meaning, either side hates the constitution.

Example ?

Lol. There are thousands. Go look and think.

Well if there are “thousands “ you can easily name 5 then!!

I’m calling you out . Put up or shut up .

1.) Support for 4th Amendment and opposition to FISA warrents.
2.) Support for states rights...across the board.
3.) Support for Electoral College.
4.) Support of federalism which includes state legislatures drawing up federal congressional districts.
5.) Support for states to regulate abortion and marriage...not liberal courts.
6.) Support for the right to keep and bear arms.
7.) Support for the Constitutional requirements for our President to protect and defend this nation and its people...that includes border security.
8.) Support for land owners in the West to be free from federal abuse of power.
9.) Support for the 9th Amendment implied right to privacy so federal government cannot spy on our internet searches and phone calls without proper warrant.
10.) Support for the Enumerated Powers of Congress...especially providing for a national defense.

1#. Are you kidding ? FISA has been expanded by the cons since 911! The only time u cared is when Trump tower was bugged.

Do you know what “bi-partisan” means? Conservatives like Paul have tried to end this thing.
More than 50 Democrats joined Republicans to stop an amendment that would have reined in spying on Americans

 

[Bush92]

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

There is no reason for the federal of state governments to not recognize a marriage. You, yourself, have stated that government should not be involved in marriages, and I disagree with you there since the law is concerned with things like taxation, rights to property, rights to make decisions for cometose partners, rights of inheritance, etc. These are all civil law matters.

Yes. I have standards. They are being met. But you are lying. Gays were not allowed to get married, legally, until the Supreme Court decision. Actually, there was a judicial decision that okayed the firing of a state-government lawyer who had a religious marriage ceremony with her same-sex partner. I am wracking my brain for the name of the case to post a link and can't come up with it, but I remember the case well.

If you want to get married, why don't you go down to the courthouse and get a license, and/or have a ceremony right there. If you want a religious ceremony, go plan it.

Marriage was always a religious rite. It was even wrote about in the First Testament. It was the same here in this country when it was founded, but as time went on, government got involved and adopted marriage.

So now that marriage meets your standards, everything is just fine and dandy? What about those of us who's standards marriage doesn't meet? And when the time comes when your standards are broken, what will you say then?

Property rights, inheritances, all that could be worked out legislatively without marriage. As far as spouse only visitation rights, that is not law, that is hospital policy. Same holds true with medical coverage. There is no law that states your spouses health insurance company must put you on their policy.

Yes, gays were always allowed to get married. Who tried to stop them? There was no law against it, it's just that the state didn't have to recognize the marriage until that SC decision. Now states are being forced to accept it.

Under Constitution and States Rights...the States should be in control of civil law, and they should determine boundaries for marriage.

 

[Bush92]

#2 ) state rights : see my prior post on pot and universal gun license acceptence .

Your “across the board “ statement is obviously wrong .

No it is not.

 

[Lysistrata]

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

There is no reason for the federal of state governments to not recognize a marriage. You, yourself, have stated that government should not be involved in marriages, and I disagree with you there since the law is concerned with things like taxation, rights to property, rights to make decisions for cometose partners, rights of inheritance, etc. These are all civil law matters.

Yes. I have standards. They are being met. But you are lying. Gays were not allowed to get married, legally, until the Supreme Court decision. Actually, there was a judicial decision that okayed the firing of a state-government lawyer who had a religious marriage ceremony with her same-sex partner. I am wracking my brain for the name of the case to post a link and can't come up with it, but I remember the case well.

If you want to get married, why don't you go down to the courthouse and get a license, and/or have a ceremony right there. If you want a religious ceremony, go plan it.

Marriage was always a religious rite. It was even wrote about in the First Testament. It was the same here in this country when it was founded, but as time went on, government got involved and adopted marriage.

So now that marriage meets your standards, everything is just fine and dandy? What about those of us who's standards marriage doesn't meet? And when the time comes when your standards are broken, what will you say then?

Property rights, inheritances, all that could be worked out legislatively without marriage. As far as spouse only visitation rights, that is not law, that is hospital policy. Same holds true with medical coverage. There is no law that states your spouses health insurance company must put you on their policy.

Yes, gays were always allowed to get married. Who tried to stop them? There was no law against it, it's just that the state didn't have to recognize the marriage until that SC decision. Now states are being forced to accept it.

Under Constitution and States Rights...the States should be in control of civil law, and they should determine boundaries for marriage.

The states are NOT free to violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They are NOT free to violate the rights of their citizens. We talk about "freedom" all the time, but what would this term actually mean if a state could strip its citizens of freedom at mere will of a majority legislature. You ignore the history of prejudice among state actors/legislators toward their own citizens. Just look at the shamelessness of the Texas legislature in passing garbage laws to prevent Texans for having abortions. Look at the shamelessness of the Mississippi legislature passing laws to legalize discrimination against LGBT Mississippians. Look at the history of states, particularly ones in the U.S. south, manipulating state and local law to allow the mistreatment of African-American citizens of those states. You "states rights" people just want permission to turn on your own.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the states have to recognize marriages among LGBTs. So what? There is no skin off of anyone's teeth. Everybody now has the same under civil law. What these various religious sects do is their own business. Who cares about them? We're talking civil law here. Individual rights are individual rights. They are not subject to a popular vote. Why should a person be prevented from exercising an individual right based on some stranger's opinion? Go cry to your preacher-creature about your "standards." They have nothing to do with civil law.

Then what's wrong with incest relationships or beastiality? It's no skin off of your teeth. Everybody would then be living under civil law. After all, individual rights are individual rights. They are not subject to popular vote.

 

[Lysistrata]

So the states have to recognize marriages among LGBTs. So what? There is no skin off of anyone's teeth. Everybody now has the same under civil law. What these various religious sects do is their own business. Who cares about them? We're talking civil law here. Individual rights are individual rights. They are not subject to a popular vote. Why should a person be prevented from exercising an individual right based on some stranger's opinion? Go cry to your preacher-creature about your "standards." They have nothing to do with civil law.

Then what's wrong with incest relationships or beastiality? It's no skin off of your teeth. Everybody would then be living under civil law. After all, individual rights are individual rights. They are not subject to popular vote.

You stupidly are continuing your "slippery slope" argument when it does not apply. Just tell me how LGBT marriage affects your relationships. You know that incest is forbidden and you know why. I know that there are guys out there abusing their animals. Do you approve? Think of the poor animals. Tell me how you can't get it on with your lady because two guys down the road are married. Are they storming your bedroom or something? Trying to rape you while your wife watches? Trying to split you two up? Are they forcing you to watch as they have sex? Are they watching you as you have sex? Out with it!
You crocodile-tear folks. Just what is your game.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You stupidly are continuing your "slippery slope" argument when it does not apply. Just tell me how LGBT marriage affects your relationships.

It doesn't. Tell me how an incest relationship affects yours.

You know that incest is forbidden and you know why.

Yes, because they are being denied their rights as Americans and it needs to be stopped. Having laws against family sex is unconstitutional.

Tell me how you can't get it on with your lady because two guys down the road are married. Are they storming your bedroom or something? Trying to rape you while your wife watches? Trying to split you two up? Are they forcing you to watch as they have sex? Are they watching you as you have sex? Out with it!

No, they are not. How is a man and his sheep stopping you from getting it on? Is he forcing you to watch, participate, trying to rape you?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The OP is the one making a charge. He is the one who must provide proof or at least evidence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

He's just using the usual scaremongering tactics and thinks they'll work on people who actually think.

 

[Bush92]

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

There is no reason for the federal of state governments to not recognize a marriage. You, yourself, have stated that government should not be involved in marriages, and I disagree with you there since the law is concerned with things like taxation, rights to property, rights to make decisions for cometose partners, rights of inheritance, etc. These are all civil law matters.

Yes. I have standards. They are being met. But you are lying. Gays were not allowed to get married, legally, until the Supreme Court decision. Actually, there was a judicial decision that okayed the firing of a state-government lawyer who had a religious marriage ceremony with her same-sex partner. I am wracking my brain for the name of the case to post a link and can't come up with it, but I remember the case well.

If you want to get married, why don't you go down to the courthouse and get a license, and/or have a ceremony right there. If you want a religious ceremony, go plan it.

Marriage was always a religious rite. It was even wrote about in the First Testament. It was the same here in this country when it was founded, but as time went on, government got involved and adopted marriage.

So now that marriage meets your standards, everything is just fine and dandy? What about those of us who's standards marriage doesn't meet? And when the time comes when your standards are broken, what will you say then?

Property rights, inheritances, all that could be worked out legislatively without marriage. As far as spouse only visitation rights, that is not law, that is hospital policy. Same holds true with medical coverage. There is no law that states your spouses health insurance company must put you on their policy.

Yes, gays were always allowed to get married. Who tried to stop them? There was no law against it, it's just that the state didn't have to recognize the marriage until that SC decision. Now states are being forced to accept it.

Under Constitution and States Rights...the States should be in control of civil law, and they should determine boundaries for marriage.

The states are NOT free to violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They are NOT free to violate the rights of their citizens. We talk about "freedom" all the time, but what would this term actually mean if a state could strip its citizens of freedom at mere will of a majority legislature. You ignore the history of prejudice among state actors/legislators toward their own citizens. Just look at the shamelessness of the Texas legislature in passing garbage laws to prevent Texans for having abortions. Look at the shamelessness of the Mississippi legislature passing laws to legalize discrimination against LGBT Mississippians. Look at the history of states, particularly ones in the U.S. south, manipulating state and local law to allow the mistreatment of African-American citizens of those states. You "states rights" people just want permission to turn on your own.

14th Amendment clarifies the definition of citizenship...thus the alternate term “illegal.”

 

[Bush92]

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

He's just using the usual scaremongering tactics and thinks they'll work on people who actually think.

“People who actually think” you mean conservatives?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

I'm talking about in this country.

If the incest laws are challenged, those laws may be unconstitutional now and have have to be rescinded. The ruling was you can't deny any people of this so-called right which means you can't have any law that would prohibit that constitutional right.

If, if, if.

So, you don't want to have this one law, because there is a chance, however remote, that something else could change?

What? That's nonsense.

Gay people shouldn't marry because potentially someone might challenge incest laws. It's not going to happen Ray. Scaremongering because you have nothing else.

How about we ban all people from driving cars because it could lead to, one day, the potential for cows being able to drive. I mean, it could happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

The phony Christian "preachers." There are perverted sects within Christianity that teach men to dishonor and disrespect their wives and teaches women that their husbands, not them, own their bodies. Heterosexual sexual perversion abounds in fundie "Christianity."

8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal
I Let My Husband Rape Me, and Here’s Why...


A lot of this shit comes from paul, a known woman-hater who never knew Jesus of Nazareth. Men from these perverted phony "Christian" cults are brought up to think that sex is their right, whenever they please, whatever they please, and that women's bodies belong to them. What a disgrace to humanity, to heterosexuality, and to all that is holy.

How strange, because I was raised as a Catholic. In fact went to a Catholic school for my primary education. Unlike public school, we had religion class every single day, and this is the first I've heard about it.

What you don't understand about Christian religions is they all attempt to mimic Jesus. I don't recall one story where Jesus ordered his women followers to be sexually enslaved to their husbands.

Jesus didn't say much about sex, did he. Tell your story to the right-wing evangelical/fundie trash. They are the ones who are pushing this shit.
My Catholic father loved my Catholic mother and I almost was not born because my father did not want her to go through the danger and pain she went through to give birth to my older brother again. But she wanted one more, a daughter, and talked him into it. Then he took me in his hands and never, ever, until his death at 83, let me go. His earnings paid for every dime of my university education. His shaky elderly self went to see my mother every day when she was in a nursing home prior to her death.
Interestingly, my father took me to Sunday school and any religious service I wished to attend when I was a teenager, Catholic or not. Sometimes Quaker, sometimes Unitarian, as I chose. He vetoed my mother's plan to send us to Catholic school, reasoning that we had to learn to live among all people.
He lived an unsung life of honor. He left a legacy of love and devotion. He would not have hated LGBTs. In fact, there is a story about his friendship with a man who seems to have been gay, and how this man honored him and my mother at the beginning of WWII, knowing that he, himself, could not go fight, so he showed my mom and dad the town, a royal tour of NYC. They, all of them, worked at NYC's Waldorf Astoria.

Being against gay marriage is not hate of anybody. Marriage used to be a social standard. We all have standards. If they allowed man to marry dog, would you be against that and why? Or brother and sister, or mother and son?

Why should these people be denied the same happiness as a hetro married couple? Why should they be denied the same government protections that other married people have?

Now unless you can tell me you think anybody should be allowed to marry anybody else, then it's apparent you have standards too, it's just that your standards are different from other people.

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

Oh wow, sinking lower and lower.

The phrase CONSENTING ADULTS springs to mind.

Let's see. Is a dog able to consent? No. Oh.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

He's just using the usual scaremongering tactics and thinks they'll work on people who actually think.

“People who actually think” you mean conservatives?

Well, on the evidence of this board, no.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The phrase CONSENTING ADULTS springs to mind.

Let's see. Is a dog able to consent? No. Oh.

Does the dog give consent to be forced to live in your home, eat dog food or be walked on a leash?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gay people shouldn't marry because potentially someone might challenge incest laws. It's not going to happen Ray. Scaremongering because you have nothing else.

Really? Well people 40 years ago thought the same thing about gay marriage: it's never going to happen. Guess what?????

 

[Avatar4321]

I recommend studying the constitution. You need to know it better

 

[frigidweirdo]

The phrase CONSENTING ADULTS springs to mind.

Let's see. Is a dog able to consent? No. Oh.

Does the dog give consent to be forced to live in your home, eat dog food or be walked on a leash?

And again you go way off topic. Don't even bother to try and explain what you're talking about, it's just deflecting again.

We're talking about consent to marry Ray, children can live in your home, they can't consent to marry. It's fucking simple Ray.

So, would you care to talk about the topic, or just go off on another bullshit deflection?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gay people shouldn't marry because potentially someone might challenge incest laws. It's not going to happen Ray. Scaremongering because you have nothing else.

Really? Well people 40 years ago thought the same thing about gay marriage: it's never going to happen. Guess what?????

There's a big difference between fucking your sister, and fucking someone of the same sex Ray. You might not have guessed what it is yet, but you can have a try. Go on, have a try, tell me what the difference is.

I'll give you a clue. Queen Victoria's Hemophilia