Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays have been getting married in MA for over a decade now. Not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. Fear mongering is pretty what ya'll have left.

Far longer than that. Gays were never prohibited from marriage.

Why do you guys bother with these junks argument the courts have already tossed? Gay marriage would be a non-issue, if you homophobic children would just let it ******* go...

Yeah, and the First Amendment would be a non-issue if no one complained when the government tried to censor us.

What a moron.

Gay marriage is a done deal. It's none of your ******* business in the first place.

"It's done deal?" Is that supposed to be an argument of some kind? How is it not my business? All laws are my business, numskull.

No, most of them are none of your business, nor do you have a say, nor were you ever meant to. Plow the fields and shut the **** up, as the Founders wanted.

 

[bripat9643]

I think your in the wrong thread to be deflecting.

Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case.

Now tell me it can't become law.

Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.

It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.

Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.

If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?

The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.

I've already answered that question.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

All these fags butt holes are getting wet with the idea of getting to have anal sex after being legally married. It's sickening.

Do grow up, please. That's a bathhouse, not a wedding reception.

Look at craigslist casual encounters and you'll see the filth I'm talking about associated with homos.

 

[Pop23]

Really? Why should that be?

While it doesn't necessarily have to be, it follows tradition, legal traditions.

Having two sexes also follows tradition, numskull. You and the GAYstapo are throwing tradition out the window, so anything goes now.

Requiring that they be opposite sex is traditional, but it goes against an American value, equality before the law. Bye bye tradition, in this case.

Wrong. There's nothing unequal about recognizing the facts of biology.

This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality. We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children. Marriage is not about them, obviously.

But in only CERTAIN cases do we require that they can't. And we deny rights to those that can.

Doesn't work well with the whole SSM argument does it?

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Why should that be?

While it doesn't necessarily have to be, it follows tradition, legal traditions.

Having two sexes also follows tradition, numskull. You and the GAYstapo are throwing tradition out the window, so anything goes now.

Requiring that they be opposite sex is traditional, but it goes against an American value, equality before the law. Bye bye tradition, in this case.

Wrong. There's nothing unequal about recognizing the facts of biology.

This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality. We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children. Marriage is not about them, obviously.

The law takes biology into consideration, moron. That's why we have men's and women's bathrooms.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All these fags butt holes are getting wet with the idea of getting to have anal sex after being legally married. It's sickening.

Do grow up, please. That's a bathhouse, not a wedding reception.

Look at craigslist casual encounters and you'll see the filth I'm talking about associated with homos.

Stop looking at gay porn. And men sending around pictures of their dicks is hardly limited to the fags eh?

 

[Pop23]

Red Minnow will be disappointed to find out his fellow incest/polygamy travelers will have to build their own legal cases to make their desires legal.

Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry. Really odd.

You idiot, I am opposed to those things, but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.

I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. Time will prove me right.

No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.

No one is talking about raping a child, moron.

Incorrect. Pop is talking about pedophilia.. marrying pre-pubescent children etc.

You must be of legal age to marry.

I sure hope you ain't a chick, youre far to easy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

While it doesn't necessarily have to be, it follows tradition, legal traditions.

Having two sexes also follows tradition, numskull. You and the GAYstapo are throwing tradition out the window, so anything goes now.

Requiring that they be opposite sex is traditional, but it goes against an American value, equality before the law. Bye bye tradition, in this case.

Wrong. There's nothing unequal about recognizing the facts of biology.

This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality. We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children. Marriage is not about them, obviously.

But in only CERTAIN cases do we require that they can't. And we deny rights to those that can.

Doesn't work well with the whole SSM argument does it?

Incest is a dog that won't hunt Pop, let it go.

 

[bripat9643]

Far longer than that. Gays were never prohibited from marriage.

Why do you guys bother with these junks argument the courts have already tossed? Gay marriage would be a non-issue, if you homophobic children would just let it ******* go...

Yeah, and the First Amendment would be a non-issue if no one complained when the government tried to censor us.

What a moron.

Gay marriage is a done deal. It's none of your ******* business in the first place.

"It's done deal?" Is that supposed to be an argument of some kind? How is it not my business? All laws are my business, numskull.

No, most of them are none of your business, nor do you have a say, nor were you ever meant to. Plow the fields and shut the **** up, as the Founders wanted.

Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you ******* Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.

 

[bripat9643]

How come people can't **** consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.

It sounds like that's what YOU want.

Here is a clue for you so you don't get into trouble...

Animals, children and dead people can't consent. Hope that keeps you out of jail.

Animals don't have to consent to being slaughtered for food, so why should they have to consent to being married?

See, Seawytch.....they have no interest in discussing gay marriage. These are red herrings for the sole purpose of changing the topic. For ****'s sake, his best argument against gay marriage is hamburgers.

They've conceded the gay marriage debate, running from it and refusing to discuss it.

You're simply a moron.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you ******* Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.

Liberal Elitist actually, like the Founders of this nation.

 

[bripat9643]

Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.

It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.

Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.

If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?

The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.

Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a **** what the law says or what logic says, just like you.

44 of 46 times? A judge or two might rule match your description. But you're describing virtually the whole of the judiciary. And they almost all contradict you. Including many Reagan appointees.

Laughing.......only our resident gay marriage opponents would be so desperate as to try and argue that the FAILURE of their argument in virtually every federal court is evidence that they must be right.

Here's a much simpler explanation: your reasoning sucks. The anti-gay marriage argument is a self contradictory mess that doesn't hold up.

Wrong, as usual.

 

[Seawytch]

All these fags butt holes are getting wet with the idea of getting to have anal sex after being legally married. It's sickening.

Do grow up, please. That's a bathhouse, not a wedding reception.

Look at craigslist casual encounters and you'll see the filth I'm talking about associated with homos.

New York:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 165 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 9 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Chicago:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 200 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 6 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Houston:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 54 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 10 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bloggasm Your chances of getting laid through Craigslist A Bloggasm case study

 

[Skylar]

If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?

The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.

Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a **** what the law says or what logic says, just like you.

Many, probably most, weren't Liberal, just much smarter than you, and therefore able to follow the spirit of the law.

More than half of them are liberal, moron. Obama has been in office for 8 years. How many do you suppose he has put on the court?

Says who? Remmeber, Brit.....you can't actually back up a thing you say. You merely make shit up and then insist we accept your imagination as unimpeachable fact.

Laughing....um, no.

And no, dip....Obama's been in office for 6 years. Even math is beyond you.

Remember, you're an idiot.

At least I can count...and recognize Obama been in office 6 years rather than 8. That puts me head and shoulders above you.

But tell us again how a majority of the judges in the federal judiciary are 'liberals'? Bush appointed 62. Obama has only 53. Wait......you're not really good with numbers, are you. My 4 year old niece had the same problem. Let me see if the explanation I gave her will help you.

Mr. Alligator is hungry. His jaws open to eat the biggest numbers!

6 < 8

See, 6 is less than 8. Lets try another:

53 < 62.

See, 53 is less than 62. So how are 'most judges liberal' because Obama's 'been in office 8 years'? Explain it to us.

 

[bripat9643]

Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you ******* Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.

Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.

The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?

 

[Pop23]

Having two sexes also follows tradition, numskull. You and the GAYstapo are throwing tradition out the window, so anything goes now.

Requiring that they be opposite sex is traditional, but it goes against an American value, equality before the law. Bye bye tradition, in this case.

Wrong. There's nothing unequal about recognizing the facts of biology.

This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality. We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children. Marriage is not about them, obviously.

But in only CERTAIN cases do we require that they can't. And we deny rights to those that can.

Doesn't work well with the whole SSM argument does it?

Incest is a dog that won't hunt Pop, let it go.

Same sex sibling marriage is a dog that hunts and catches prey. Just check out this thread.

Got the best of Ya running for cover.

 

[Skylar]

It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.

Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.

If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?

The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.

Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a **** what the law says or what logic says, just like you.

44 of 46 times? A judge or two might rule match your description. But you're describing virtually the whole of the judiciary. And they almost all contradict you. Including many Reagan appointees.

Laughing.......only our resident gay marriage opponents would be so desperate as to try and argue that the FAILURE of their argument in virtually every federal court is evidence that they must be right.

Here's a much simpler explanation: your reasoning sucks. The anti-gay marriage argument is a self contradictory mess that doesn't hold up.

Wrong, as usual.

Says you. Naked denial is all you have. And you can't even count.

44 of 46 times? That's not a 'liberal judge'. That's a vastly better argument.

 

[Seawytch]

Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you ******* Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.

Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.

The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?

Nope...nor blacks not being property or women having the right to vote...but they planned for possibilities.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you ******* Nazi moron. Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business. I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.

Liberal Elitist, like the Founders of this nation, actually.

The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?

They believed that the pitchforks were good for the plowing fields and making babies, and that they should have no say in making laws. If they had wanted that we'd be a democracy. Laws need to be made by wiser men than you, much wiser.

 

[bripat9643]

Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a **** what the law says or what logic says, just like you.

Many, probably most, weren't Liberal, just much smarter than you, and therefore able to follow the spirit of the law.

More than half of them are liberal, moron. Obama has been in office for 8 years. How many do you suppose he has put on the court?

Says who? Remmeber, Brit.....you can't actually back up a thing you say. You merely make shit up and then insist we accept your imagination as unimpeachable fact.

Laughing....um, no.

And no, dip....Obama's been in office for 6 years. Even math is beyond you.

Remember, you're an idiot.

At least I can count...and recognize Obama been in office 6 years rather than 8. That puts me head and shoulders above you.

But tell us again how a majority of the judges in the federal judiciary are 'liberals'? Bush appointed 62. Obama has only 53. Wait......you're not really good with numbers, are you. My 4 year old niece had the same problem. Let me see if the explanation I gave her will help you.

Mr. Alligator is hungry. His jaws open to eat the biggest numbers!

6 < 8

See, 6 is less than 8. Lets try another:

53 < 62.

See, 53 is less than 62. So how are 'most judges liberal' because Obama's 'been in office 8 years'? Explain it to us.

Your math implies there were no judges already on the court prior to Bush. You're ignoring all the judges Clinton put on the court. You're also ignoring the fact that some of the Bush judges may have retired by now.

You're just not good at this logic crap, are you?