Every Argument made for Gay Marriage applies to Mother's Marrying Daughters who...

[bodecea]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

A mother and daughter, two sisters, two brothers, a grandfather with his son's son. . . if all of these unions are between 2 consenting adults, then yes, the government's view on them should be consistent.

I'm all for legalizing incest, even though I find the concept pretty revolting. If you want to marry your sister, the only way I could see myself objecting to that is if I also wanted to marry your sister.

This is about as idiotic as the OP.

You make the same mistake as others opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples, you incorrectly view the issue as same-sex couples seeking something ‘new’ or ‘special,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the identical marriage law as opposite-sex couples, unaltered and unchanged; where mothers and daughters, brothers and sisters are not eligible.

Consequently the nonsense expressed by the OP is mere demagoguery.

Or...something....

 

[mal]

Republicans are the only ones who jump from "same-sex marriage" to "incest and bestiality".

No one is suggesting marriage for a mother and a daughter. That wouldn't be in the law. No one is suggesting that a duck marry a toaster. That wouldn't be in the law. Two adults, man, woman, man, man, woman, woman, whatever, can get married to each other. Marriage is only between two PEOPLE.

Why is that so difficult to understand? The Bible is wrong and that's why it does not have authority over American law.

It does get a little scary how many of them cannot tell the difference between consent and inability to give consent.

So Marriage to you is about Society approving of your Choice of sex... noted.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

I agree. My aunt has been caring for years for her long time female friend and former roommate who is dying. Why should they not have the benefits of marriage?

We went that route on our own? Pardon my guffaw.

Anyways....you are a lucky person. Just sayin'.

 

[kaz]

#1 You brought your aunt up as an example.

#2. I'm complimenting her. She seems like a wonderful person. But if compliments are off limits, I will no longer compliment her.

#1. Explain how my bringing up my aunt makes her fair game.

#2. Family is off limits, and obviously I don't like it. There is no "compliment" in that. If she were a lesbian, that would be fine with me. I don't like her being called one when she isn't and I said nothing that indicates that she is, you and NTG are just assholes who went that route on your own.

Explain how complimenting someone is a bad thing. You DO know that saying someone is "selfless" is a compliment, right?

Asked and answered. Since you think that a "compliment" is a politically motivated jab instead of something that is intended to make the receiver feel good, I do agree with you that your "complimenting someone is a bad thing" and it would be a best practice for you to stay away from them.

And stop being so stupid, had you called her "selfless" I obviously would have been fine with that. It was calling her a lesbian I objected to. You could have said my bad and you'll stay away from it, but you pursued it as well. Obviously you know that's not a "compliment."

 

[kaz]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

I agree. My aunt has been caring for years for her long time female friend and former roommate who is dying. Why should they not have the benefits of marriage?

We went that route on our own? Pardon my guffaw.

Anyways....you are a lucky person. Just sayin'.

Right, that post was a point regarding why marriage should only be limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples and not open to everyone else. With reading comprehension, clearly I was saying she was not homosexual, but she did a great thing to help her friend, why should she not get the benefits if you think homosexuals should.

NTG and you went to the opposite of my meaning. And clearly you did it with political motivation, and to be dicks about it.

 

[bodecea]

I agree. My aunt has been caring for years for her long time female friend and former roommate who is dying. Why should they not have the benefits of marriage?

We went that route on our own? Pardon my guffaw.

Anyways....you are a lucky person. Just sayin'.

Right, that post was a point regarding why marriage should only be limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples and not open to everyone else. With reading comprehension, clearly I was saying she was not homosexual, but she did a great thing to help her friend, why should she not get the benefits if you think homosexuals should.

NTG and you went to the opposite of my meaning. And clearly you did it with political motivation, and to be dicks about it.

I totally understand what you are trying to do here. So...I will step away from your trap. Have a nice day.

 

[kaz]

We went that route on our own? Pardon my guffaw.

Anyways....you are a lucky person. Just sayin'.

Right, that post was a point regarding why marriage should only be limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples and not open to everyone else. With reading comprehension, clearly I was saying she was not homosexual, but she did a great thing to help her friend, why should she not get the benefits if you think homosexuals should.

NTG and you went to the opposite of my meaning. And clearly you did it with political motivation, and to be dicks about it.

I totally understand what you are trying to do here. So...I will step away from your trap. Have a nice day.

What I'm trying to do you lying *****? Had it been an actual innocent mistake, you would have apologized when I objected instead of pursuing it and continuing to be a dick about it. Now after another half dozen or so posts posts continuing it suddenly you're saying you didn't get what I meant and blaming me for it? What suddenly clued you in?

 

[AceRothstein]

You all need to get over gay marriage. It is inevitable and once it is here it isn't going to go away.

 

[Sunshine]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

I agree. My aunt has been caring for years for her long time female friend and former roommate who is dying. Why should they not have the benefits of marriage?

Because it will chip away at the Validation that Homosexuals are seeking in getting Special Marriage "Rights" for only them.

That's what this has ALWAYS been about.



peace...

All this is about money and benefits. Not about who they ****. They can **** who they want now. They want all the financial benefits that come with marriage.

 

[bodecea]

I agree. My aunt has been caring for years for her long time female friend and former roommate who is dying. Why should they not have the benefits of marriage?

Because it will chip away at the Validation that Homosexuals are seeking in getting Special Marriage "Rights" for only them.

That's what this has ALWAYS been about.



peace...

All this is about money and benefits. Not about who they ****. They can **** who they want now. They want all the financial benefits that come with marriage.

Just like hetero couples who get a civil marriage license. It's all about the money and benefits. They can **** who they want...but those who get civilly married want all the financial benefits that come with that marriage license.

(It is always insightful to see what is important to the Rightwing posters here.)

 

[mal]

Because it will chip away at the Validation that Homosexuals are seeking in getting Special Marriage "Rights" for only them.

That's what this has ALWAYS been about.



peace...

All this is about money and benefits. Not about who they ****. They can **** who they want now. They want all the financial benefits that come with marriage.

Just like hetero couples who get a civil marriage license. It's all about the money and benefits. They can **** who they want...but those who get civilly married want all the financial benefits that come with that marriage license.

(It is always insightful to see what is important to the Rightwing posters here.)

Polite Attacks are Attacks all the same... It's always interesting when people won't answer Direct Questions... Like did they March in Pride Parades in the 70s and 80s... The Lack of Answer to those Questions leaves one to have to Conclude for themselves why.



peace...

 

[emilynghiem]

You all need to get over gay marriage. It is inevitable and once it is here it isn't going to go away.

Yes and no.
A key problem that WON'T "just go away"
is recognizing people's political beliefs as equal under law.
* the right to believe in gay marriage as a right
* the right NOT to believe in gay marriage equally.

Until these political beliefs are treated
EQUALLY under law
we will ALWAYS have this problem.

Worse, it will KEEP coming up in any myriad of forms and contexts:
* prochoice BELIEFS in right to choose v. prolife BELIEFS in right to life
* belief that health care is a right v. belief that paying for it is a free market CHOICE
* right to guns without govt infringemet v. right to regulate guns
etc. etc.

This problem will never go away, as long as people have diverse political beliefs.
It has ALWAYS been there, and we still need to deal with it, now more than ever.
Constitutional EQUAL protections depend on respecting and including ALL beliefs
in due process and representation BEFORE making and enforcing any policies related.

In the past, we may have gotten away with bullying and bulldozing over opposing views for political expedience, but have outgrown partisan tactics of abusing majority rule to suppress opposition. Now that all people and parties have access to media, that game fails.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have an idea.

Lets talk about fags right before the midterms so the left can paint us as assholes AGAIN.

Genius tactic eh

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have an idea.

Lets talk about fags right before the midterms so the left can paint us as assholes AGAIN.

Genius tactic eh

Should work fine. Decent people like to vote for equality.

 

[bodecea]

I have an idea.

Lets talk about fags right before the midterms so the left can paint us as assholes AGAIN.

Genius tactic eh

You know the Far Right won't be able to help themselves. They'll talk about how evil gays are...about how not-a-big-deal rape is...how slutty women are....how dumb and racist black voters are...and how all hispanics are here illegally.

SSDD.