If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??

[Luddly Neddite]

I have nothing to whine about as my side won the battle. What is the law number? Oh wait, it does exist as no law was created. You'll get over it but the meantime I do enjoy watching these hissy fits.

Law number? Who cares about that? Are you still claiming the courts did NOT write a law??? HAHAHA. That's why the board is laughing at you.

You're wrong.

SCOTUS did not "pass a law".

Where do RWs get this stuff?

Certainly not in 6th grade civics class.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not this tried tripe again? No law was made. You can stomp your feet and claim otherwise until the cows come home but it doesn't change reality. Besides, what you suggest requires years of work and loads of money but like I said whining on the internet is far easier.

Your whine is superb. Law was made. Could gays marry before the ruling? Could they after? What law was changed? You can call it tripe but the truth never goes away.

Now, would you like to talk about corporations being people?

I have nothing to whine about as my side won the battle. What is the law number? Oh wait, it does exist as no law was created. You'll get over it but the meantime I do enjoy watching these hissy fits.

Then gays can't get married? I agree, no law was changed but gays can get married how in the hell does that work in liberal land? The SCOTUS made law with their ruling, that is fact.

No, that is merely your opinion that you are pretending to be fact. It isn't. I take solace in knowing that all across the nation gays are getting married and their isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Save crying on the web and shaking your fists.

Congrats to you and your same sex partner, I hope you will be happy. I don't give a crap if you do the bone dance with your brother's sphincter. But that does not change what the SCOTUS did. They made law. Gays couldn't get married then they could, the law changed, law was made that is all I am arguing.

You crowing about winning is in reality what most liberal issues are about, winning.

No they did not.

But hey, if you and your fellow grade school drop-outs believer that - post a link.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

 

[sealybobo]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
If a state offers a service and benefits to hetero couples got to give them to gays.
.

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

If ******* your sister was good enough for Noahs grandkids it should be good enough for us, right?

I'd love to marry my brother. He's rich!

Yep. Lots of incest in the bible. Not mention polygamy.

If the thumpers are going to try to use sharia law, they have to accept that others will to.

Seriously for a moment. This is a serious question to Christians. What does the bible say about ******* your sister?

Seems like just about every sort of female gets fucked in the bible.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

[
If a state offers a service and benefits to hetero couples got to give them to gays.
.

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

You don't understand the role of SCOTUS.

Or, are you going to post that link the "law" they passed.

You cracker ass trailer trash NEVER know WTF you're talking about.

NEVER.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

SCOTUS did not "pass a law".

.

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself.? They ordered states to accept queer marriage. The courts naturally don't call that writing a law because the constitution bans them from writing laws - but everybody can see that they did.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

You don't understand the role of SCOTUS.

SCOTUS are judges not legislators. And they're not even consistent legislators. If they say queer marriage must be allowed then they have to say the same of sibling marriage. THINK

 

[RosieS]

If doctors can transplant a kidney from one person to another, why can't some right wingers get a brain transplant?

The one they were born with is obviously useless.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Political Junky]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

So it's a health issue with you? So what about the queers and their AIDS and hepatitis.?

So, you think marriage increases the risk of AIDS & hepatitis?

 

[sealybobo]

[
If a state offers a service and benefits to hetero couples got to give them to gays.
.

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

I do. It's not right to marry your sibling. It's incest and that's illegal.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Group "marriage".... Its in the constitution !!! Lol

 

[ogibillm]

[

Why bother with the legislature, much easier to have 5 old men and women make law.

Yup - and it's 5 UNELECTED old men and women on the SCOTUS who have given themselves the power to make law even though the constitution says only congress can do that.

why does it matter that they were unelected? that's the way we choose our supreme court justices. always has been. what's the problem with that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

So it's a health issue with you? So what about the queers and their AIDS and hepatitis.?

Doesn't encouraging monogamy impede the spread of infectious diseases?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
If a state offers a service and benefits to hetero couples got to give them to gays.
.

But siblings can say the same thing. You don't understand what this thread is about.

They could say that before same sex marriage was legalized. Trying to limit marriage to one specific type is not a magic bullet...

...that was tried when you were only allowed to marry someone of your own race.

 

[Wildman]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

is that photo of two of the most prolific insidious libertard posters on this forum?my guess is a resounding "YES", i could name them but we all know who they are, they both are the result of incestuous inbreeding and defend their marriage and that of other qweers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

[

Why bother with the legislature, much easier to have 5 old men and women make law.

Yup - and it's 5 UNELECTED old men and women on the SCOTUS who have given themselves the power to make law even though the constitution says only congress can do that.

why does it matter that they were unelected? that's the way we choose our supreme court justices. always has been. what's the problem with that?

He hates the constitution and still has no clue of the role of our supreme court.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Beastiality "marriage" Equality !!!!

Freaks have rights to love too !

It must be in the constitution somewhere ...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

So you're saying that if there is a higher possibility of a genetic disorder being passed on they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Then shouldn't it apply to people who have Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, muscular dystrophy, etc... too?

I'm sure the Navajo nation, which has a inheritable diabetes incidence of over 50%, will be happy to hear they can't marry.

*****SMILE*****