Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Pop23]

Change the premise. How does your incestuous family effect mine?

Fun little game you folks started aye?

Incest is banned for very good reasons, dumb ass.

Not anymore, procreation had no place in marriage, remember

You folks crack me up. Create an argument, then called on it.......

RUN

No one ever said "procreation had no place in marriage." Your are making shit up. Why don't you start talking out your mouth instead of your ass.

It's part of the argument

I know, a bit to deep for someone who agrees that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. That is the LGBTQLMNOP argument. But but wait........

It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass. It was not part of the argument that won. The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage. They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners. Do you understand the difference?

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

 

[rightwinger]

Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born

He can now marry someone of another race if he chooses
He can now marry someone of the same sex if he wants to

His options in choosing a partner have more than doubled!

Wrong, I can't, I'm already married.

But you bring up a good point RW, using your arguments, maybe soon I'll have the option of adding a few more wives.

Way to address the problem in a way RK Jillian and SillyWytch refused to

Gotta keep your options open Pops

Just think....you can now marry a "negro" if you want to.
If you finally acknowledge your sexual urges and fall in love with another man, you can divorce your wife and marry him

 

[Pop23]

Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born

He can now marry someone of another race if he chooses
He can now marry someone of the same sex if he wants to

His options in choosing a partner have more than doubled!

Wrong, I can't, I'm already married.

But you bring up a good point RW, using your arguments, maybe soon I'll have the option of adding a few more wives.

Way to address the problem in a way RK Jillian and SillyWytch refused to

Gotta keep your options open Pops

Just think....you can now marry a "negro" if you want to.
If you fall in love with another man, you can divorce your wife and marry him

And soon a sister, and because I want to be politically correct, a brother.

What a world you created aye?

 

[Seawytch]

saw this just now off another site:

The purpose of the political maneuvers on homosexual marriage were not about Tom and Dick living in wedded bliss ... it was about putting the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family model. Destroying the family has worked wonders for the federal government workers unions (i.e., Progressive Democrats) by decimating black families and setting up vote farms in urban areas where the vote livestock are herded from unionized government schools to federally funded abortion clinics to welfare offices. They want to extend the destruction of traditional principles as much as possible because no matter how bad things get for taxpayers, the government unions benefit.

Plagiarism now too Steph? Is there no end to your indiscretions?

How, exactly, does my family and my civil marriage "destroy" anyone else's? Be specific.

that's all you have? whining over plagiarism. figures

No, it was an aside to the question I asked which you ignored to focus on the inconsequential plagiarism. I'll ask it again. How, exactly, does my family and my civil marriage "destroy" anyone else's? Be specific.

Change the premise. How does your incestuous family effect mine?

Fun little game you folks started aye?

I don't have an incestuous family. None of my family tree branched into Alabama, thanks.

I will answer the question, however. An incestuous family does not effect mine as long as they are prohibited from procreating...which is the case in some states. When they do procreate, however, they often give birth to children with severe defects that they are not equipped to deal with and the children end up wards of the state for some gay couple to foster and raise.

 

[Seawytch]

Gotta love those men and women in black robes. don't forget they BE THE LAW OF THE LAND

SNIP:
New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps…
Or as the left calls them, undocumented primates.


ALL of it here:

New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps Weasel Zippers

Why haven't you answered my question? How does my family and my legal civil marriage destroy anyone else's as you claimed earlier?

 

[Stephanie]

This is the RESULTS coming at you over all this: You all should be very afraid

SNIP:
Commission says Christian business owners should leave religion at home

By Todd Starnes
Published October 07, 2014
FoxNews.com

(Courtesy Hands on Originals)
The Human Rights Commission in Lexington, Kentucky has a chilling message for Christian business owners who refuse service to LGBT organizations: leave your religion at home.
“It would be safe to do so, yes,” Executive Director Raymond Sexton told me. “Or in this case you can find yourself two years down the road and you’re still involved in a legal battle because you did not do so.”

On Tuesday, a Lexington Human Rights Commission hearing examiner issued a recommended ruling that the owner of a T-shirt company violated a local ordinance against sexual-orientation discrimination. You can read the ruling by clicking here.

Take just a moment and let that sink in – a Christian business owner is being ordered to attend diversity training – because of his religious beliefs. That’s a pretty frightening concept and a mighty dangerous precedent.
“It was a landmark decision,” Sexton said. “This is a very important ruling for us.”
The examiner concluded that Blaine Adamson of Hands On Originals broke the law in 2012 by declining to print shirts promoting the Lexington Pride Festival. The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization subsequently filed a complaint.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases, represented Adamson, a devout Christian.
“No one should be forced by the government or by another citizen to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said ADF attorney Jim Campbell. “Blaine declined to the request to print the shirts not because of any characteristic of the people who asked for them, but because of the message that the shirts would communicate.”
ADF also pointed out that Hands On Originals has a history of doing business with the LGBT community as well has hiring LGBT workers.

ALL of it here:
Commission says Christian business owners should leave religion at home Fox News

 

[rightwinger]

Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born

He can now marry someone of another race if he chooses
He can now marry someone of the same sex if he wants to

His options in choosing a partner have more than doubled!

Wrong, I can't, I'm already married.

But you bring up a good point RW, using your arguments, maybe soon I'll have the option of adding a few more wives.

Way to address the problem in a way RK Jillian and SillyWytch refused to

Gotta keep your options open Pops

Just think....you can now marry a "negro" if you want to.
If you fall in love with another man, you can divorce your wife and marry him

And soon a sister, and because I want to be politically correct, a brother.

What a world you created aye?

If that is want you want.....You have the same rights as gays had to use our political system to fight for your right to marry your sister

I wish you luck

 

[Pop23]

saw this just now off another site:

The purpose of the political maneuvers on homosexual marriage were not about Tom and Dick living in wedded bliss ... it was about putting the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family model. Destroying the family has worked wonders for the federal government workers unions (i.e., Progressive Democrats) by decimating black families and setting up vote farms in urban areas where the vote livestock are herded from unionized government schools to federally funded abortion clinics to welfare offices. They want to extend the destruction of traditional principles as much as possible because no matter how bad things get for taxpayers, the government unions benefit.

Plagiarism now too Steph? Is there no end to your indiscretions?

How, exactly, does my family and my civil marriage "destroy" anyone else's? Be specific.

that's all you have? whining over plagiarism. figures

No, it was an aside to the question I asked which you ignored to focus on the inconsequential plagiarism. I'll ask it again. How, exactly, does my family and my civil marriage "destroy" anyone else's? Be specific.

Change the premise. How does your incestuous family effect mine?

Fun little game you folks started aye?

I don't have an incestuous family. None of my family tree branched into Alabama, thanks.

I will answer the question, however. An incestuous family does not effect mine as long as they are prohibited from procreating...which is the case in some states. When they do procreate, however, they often give birth to children with severe defects that they are not equipped to deal with and the children end up wards of the state for some gay couple to foster and raise.

Prohibit? Doesn't seem fair cuz marriage ain't about procreating, or did you forget that?

Alabama?

Kinda a bigoted statement.

Shame on ya SillyWytch

 

[Seawytch]

62% of the country will soon be able to civil marry someone of the opposite or same sex if they want to. We are less than 40% away from full equality. (As if you can't tell by the lost flailing of the anti gay crowd).

 

[Stephanie]

Gotta love those men and women in black robes. don't forget they BE THE LAW OF THE LAND

SNIP:
New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps…
Or as the left calls them, undocumented primates.


ALL of it here:

New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps Weasel Zippers

Why haven't you answered my question? How does my family and my legal civil marriage destroy anyone else's as you claimed earlier?

I don't care if you marry your dog. I'm talking about the legalities of all this and what it is going to bring DOWN on the rest of us in this country. I know you don't give a crap about anyone else. so don't ask me again

 

[Pop23]

Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born

He can now marry someone of another race if he chooses
He can now marry someone of the same sex if he wants to

His options in choosing a partner have more than doubled!

Wrong, I can't, I'm already married.

But you bring up a good point RW, using your arguments, maybe soon I'll have the option of adding a few more wives.

Way to address the problem in a way RK Jillian and SillyWytch refused to

Gotta keep your options open Pops

Just think....you can now marry a "negro" if you want to.
If you fall in love with another man, you can divorce your wife and marry him

And soon a sister, and because I want to be politically correct, a brother.

What a world you created aye?

If that is want you want.....You have the same rights as gays had to use our political system to fight for your right to marry your sister

I wish you luck

There ya go again, create the argument and expect someone to do the dirty work for you.

As always, no courage of your own conviction.

Do you believe your own argument or not?

It's really that simple

 

[RKMBrown]

Incest is banned for very good reasons, dumb ass.

Not anymore, procreation had no place in marriage, remember

You folks crack me up. Create an argument, then called on it.......

RUN

No one ever said "procreation had no place in marriage." Your are making shit up. Why don't you start talking out your mouth instead of your ass.

It's part of the argument

I know, a bit to deep for someone who agrees that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. That is the LGBTQLMNOP argument. But but wait........

It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass. It was not part of the argument that won. The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage. They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners. Do you understand the difference?

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage. I thought I made that clear.

 

[Pop23]

62% of the country will soon be able to civil marry someone of the opposite or same sex if they want to. We are less than 40% away from full equality. (As if you can't tell by the lost flailing of the anti gay crowd).

You already had full equality. And no, you are not (yet) free to marry your mother.

But you are on track to fix that

 

[Pop23]

Not anymore, procreation had no place in marriage, remember

You folks crack me up. Create an argument, then called on it.......

RUN

No one ever said "procreation had no place in marriage." Your are making shit up. Why don't you start talking out your mouth instead of your ass.

It's part of the argument

I know, a bit to deep for someone who agrees that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. That is the LGBTQLMNOP argument. But but wait........

It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass. It was not part of the argument that won. The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage. They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners. Do you understand the difference?

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage. I thought I made that clear.

Two sisters can't procreate.

Try again

 

[RKMBrown]

No one ever said "procreation had no place in marriage." Your are making shit up. Why don't you start talking out your mouth instead of your ass.

It's part of the argument

I know, a bit to deep for someone who agrees that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. That is the LGBTQLMNOP argument. But but wait........

It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass. It was not part of the argument that won. The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage. They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners. Do you understand the difference?

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage. I thought I made that clear.

Two sisters can't procreate.

Try again

Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.

 

[Rotagilla]

When the courts refuse to hear (thereby abdicating their responsibility) cases that millions and millions of americans want rulings on, they have become de facto legislators without having to amend the constitution....

Now, the only way their rulings can be UNDONE is through a constitutional convention to add amendments.

...and politicians know and count on the fact that most americans are either too distracted, too busy or too ignorant to be able to complete that process.

....so the left uses activist judges to ram their agendas through without having to bother with allowing people to vote or even bother with the normal legislative process...

It's effective, really...devious, dishonest, cunning, and mendacious...but effective.

Some major "corrections" are coming, though. It's inevitable.

 

[martybegan]

It's part of the argument

I know, a bit to deep for someone who agrees that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. That is the LGBTQLMNOP argument. But but wait........

It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass. It was not part of the argument that won. The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage. They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners. Do you understand the difference?

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage. I thought I made that clear.

Two sisters can't procreate.

Try again

Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.

Not with each other (yet)

 

[rightwinger]

Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born

He can now marry someone of another race if he chooses
He can now marry someone of the same sex if he wants to

His options in choosing a partner have more than doubled!

Wrong, I can't, I'm already married.

But you bring up a good point RW, using your arguments, maybe soon I'll have the option of adding a few more wives.

Way to address the problem in a way RK Jillian and SillyWytch refused to

Gotta keep your options open Pops

Just think....you can now marry a "negro" if you want to.
If you fall in love with another man, you can divorce your wife and marry him

And soon a sister, and because I want to be politically correct, a brother.

What a world you created aye?

If that is want you want.....You have the same rights as gays had to use our political system to fight for your right to marry your sister

I wish you luck

There ya go again, create the argument and expect someone to do the dirty work for you.

As always, no courage of your own conviction.

Do you believe your own argument or not?

It's really that simple

You are creating the incest argument by inferring there is some slippery slope

If you believe that slope to allowing incestuous marriages, go ahead and fight to make incest legal. Then fight to allow incestuous marriages. That is what gays had to do. Their slope obviously wasn't so slippery

 

[Pop23]

It's part of the argument

I know, a bit to deep for someone who agrees that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. That is the LGBTQLMNOP argument. But but wait........

It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass. It was not part of the argument that won. The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage. They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners. Do you understand the difference?

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage. I thought I made that clear.

Two sisters can't procreate.

Try again

Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.

No they can't. Are you warped?

They would require a male

A third party

Oh, I get it , your argument for plural marriage.

I'm against plural marriage, obviously your not

 

[Pop23]

Wrong, I can't, I'm already married.

But you bring up a good point RW, using your arguments, maybe soon I'll have the option of adding a few more wives.

Way to address the problem in a way RK Jillian and SillyWytch refused to

Gotta keep your options open Pops

Just think....you can now marry a "negro" if you want to.
If you fall in love with another man, you can divorce your wife and marry him

And soon a sister, and because I want to be politically correct, a brother.

What a world you created aye?

If that is want you want.....You have the same rights as gays had to use our political system to fight for your right to marry your sister

I wish you luck

There ya go again, create the argument and expect someone to do the dirty work for you.

As always, no courage of your own conviction.

Do you believe your own argument or not?

It's really that simple

You are creating the incest argument by inferring there is some slippery slope

If you believe that slope to allowing incestuous marriages, go ahead and fight to make incest legal. Then fight to allow incestuous marriages. That is what gays had to do. Their slope obviously wasn't so slippery

No, a slippery slope requires a slope to begin with.

It's your argument , not mine, and in your mind (again not mine) it makes complete sense.

Live with it, your forcing us to