32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[NYcarbineer]

[

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

 

[martybegan]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

Why are you drawing the line above same sex marriage? It's just as arguable using your logic that civil monogamous man/woman marriage itself creates the possibility that the constitutional right of equal protection could uphold ALL of those claims of marriage rights.

Only when the courts are used to decide something is a "right" when no such "right" is listed in the constitution. If marriage was re-defined using legislation by the state legislatures this would not be an issue. The States would be using their constitutionally defined role to set the bounds for the marriage license, and could thus set it wherever they so choose. By using courts however, you allow others to parrot the EXACT same line of logic, and thus force the states to accept what they shouldn't have to.

 

[martybegan]

[

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

its the use of the courts and progressive judges that is the slippery slope. Creating rights out of thin air is the slippery slope.

 

[martybegan]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

Nice deflection, but no dice.

 

[mdk]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

There isn't any reason that those should not recognized as well. If you want to have five wives or marry your sibling then why should the government be involved at all so long as all parties are consenting? How does a gay, polygamists, or an incestuous marriage effect you in way?

 

[rightwinger]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

Nice deflection, but no dice.

So then, it seems gay marriage is not being forced on you

Nobody is even requiring that you support gay marriage either....you are free to go on hating gays
You just can't force the government to support your hatred

 

[martybegan]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

Nice deflection, but no dice.

So then, it seems gay marriage is not being forced on you

Nobody is even requiring that you support gay marriage either....you are free to go on hating gays
You just can't force the government to support your hatred

It's not about hate, and how ******* dare you assume that is my reason for my positions.

And public accommodation laws are forcing people to support gay marriage, OR ELSE.

 

[martybegan]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

There isn't any reason that those should not recognized as well. If you want to have five wives or marry your sibling then why should the government be involved at all so long as all parties are consenting? How does a gay, polygamists, or an incestuous marriage effect you in way?

How does a guy getting murdered in Iowa affect me in any way? Should we repeal murder laws in Iowa?

 

[mdk]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

There isn't any reason that those should not recognized as well. If you want to have five wives or marry your sibling then why should the government be involved at all so long as all parties are consenting? How does a gay, polygamists, or an incestuous marriage effect you in way?

How does a guy getting murdered in Iowa affect me in any way? Should we repeal murder laws in Iowa?

Good grief, that is quite the leap you made there mate. Any time a person is denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it effects us.

 

[martybegan]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

There isn't any reason that those should not recognized as well. If you want to have five wives or marry your sibling then why should the government be involved at all so long as all parties are consenting? How does a gay, polygamists, or an incestuous marriage effect you in way?

How does a guy getting murdered in Iowa affect me in any way? Should we repeal murder laws in Iowa?

Good grief, that is quite the leap you made there mate. Any time a person is denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it effects us.

its the line of logic you are using. Again, how does a murder in Iowa affect me, if I never plan on visiting Iowa?

 

[mdk]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

There isn't any reason that those should not recognized as well. If you want to have five wives or marry your sibling then why should the government be involved at all so long as all parties are consenting? How does a gay, polygamists, or an incestuous marriage effect you in way?

How does a guy getting murdered in Iowa affect me in any way? Should we repeal murder laws in Iowa?

Good grief, that is quite the leap you made there mate. Any time a person is denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it effects us.

its the line of logic you are using. Again, how does a murder in Iowa affect me, if I never plan on visiting Iowa?

No, that is the line of logic you're wrongly assigning to me. Murder is denying a person their right to life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. It may not effect you directly but it effects us all indirectly. If you blithely accept a person losing the aforementioned rights then sooner or later you'll be denied the very same.

To be honest, when it comes to consenting adults forming a marriage its really none of your business.

 

[martybegan]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

There isn't any reason that those should not recognized as well. If you want to have five wives or marry your sibling then why should the government be involved at all so long as all parties are consenting? How does a gay, polygamists, or an incestuous marriage effect you in way?

How does a guy getting murdered in Iowa affect me in any way? Should we repeal murder laws in Iowa?

Good grief, that is quite the leap you made there mate. Any time a person is denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it effects us.

its the line of logic you are using. Again, how does a murder in Iowa affect me, if I never plan on visiting Iowa?

No, that is the line of logic you're wrongly assigning to me. Murder is denying a person their right to life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. It may not effect you directly but it effects us all indirectly. If you blithely accept a person losing the aforementioned rights then sooner or later you'll be denied the very same.

To be honest, when it comes to consenting adults forming a marriage its really none of your business.

it's none of our business unless they want the relationship defined by the State. Then it becomes the business of the creator of the contract that defines the relationship, in this case, the people via the state legislatures.

 

[Seawytch]

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

Yup...blame the SCOTUS for ruling on Loving. The 14th is where your "slippery slope" began. Some guy even "warned" that the potential for interracial marriage existed once the 14th was passed. He was right.

 

[Seawytch]

it's none of our business unless they want the relationship defined by the State. Then it becomes the business of the creator of the contract that defines the relationship, in this case, the people via the state legislatures.

Since the "creator" of that contract is the government, they must (using a reasonable person standard) be able to demonstrate a societal harm by allowing it if they wish to deny it. They can't.

 

[martybegan]

it's none of our business unless they want the relationship defined by the State. Then it becomes the business of the creator of the contract that defines the relationship, in this case, the people via the state legislatures.

Since the "creator" of that contract is the government, they must (using a reasonable person standard) be able to demonstrate a societal harm by allowing it if they wish to deny it. They can't.

That basically eliminates 90% of health code laws, building codes, and a host of other laws that create regulation. Most of those are based on a CHANCE of societal harm, not proven harm.

it's interesting that only when it comes to government acceptance of how you use your genitalia that you get all "they have to prove the harm to pass the law" and your positions on other things seem to tend to the more progressive "make government force them to do it" mantra.

 

[martybegan]

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

Yup...blame the SCOTUS for ruling on Loving. The 14th is where your "slippery slope" began. Some guy even "warned" that the potential for interracial marriage existed once the 14th was passed. He was right.

You keep trying to equate race with sexuality, and keep failing with the exception of the old "It affects me, I like it, and thus is should be OK" line of argument.

 

[Seawytch]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.

Check the polls. The majority want gays to have FULL marriage equality, not your separate but equal idea of it.

2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).

Why do you persist in lying. Change the name, gays don't care...just make it the same. I'm sorry you won't feel special if gays have the same thing you do...suck it up sunshine.

3. Slipper slope fallacy removed

4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The discrimination is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

its the use of the courts and progressive judges that is the slippery slope. Creating rights out of thin air is the slippery slope.

Equal protection is a right created out of thin air?

 

[Seawytch]

You keep trying to equate race with sexuality, and keep failing with the exception of the old "It affects me, I like it, and thus is should be OK" line of argument.

No, I'm equating discrimination with discrimination. Not my fault if bigots stay the same through the ages..,their target just changes.

 

[martybegan]

[

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

its the use of the courts and progressive judges that is the slippery slope. Creating rights out of thin air is the slippery slope.

Equal protection is a right created out of thin air?

It depends what you define as equal.