Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[bripat9643]

And the compelling argument for the government to deny that?

Incest is still illegal.

Key word "still"

Yep. That's a big first step, much bigger than gay unrelated adults, much.

Next

******* your best friend isn't illegal in the country, while ******* your mommy or your little sister is. Best of luck.

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. Isn't that what you just said?

 

[bripat9643]

marriage is not a right, and yes, my marriage is very important to ME and my Wife. one man, one woman in a loving committed relationship.

again, society should decide what forms of human behavior it considers acceptable, and those decisions should be made by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Incorrect. Marriage is a right. Life is a right and marriage is a part of life. This is old established law.

What you are talking about is pissing on gays cause, well cause you are in the Majority vote. That's called tyranny of the Majority. We do not live in a country where people are arbitrarily punished by majority vote. We live in a constitutional republic where even minority groups of one are protected from angry authoritarian jerks like you.

Listen fool, the rights that you rant about were put in place by MAJORITY vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote, every law in this land was passed by majority vote.

but what you assholes want is minority rule. why not move to north korea where that is how they do things?

Why don't you come make me move, ya internet tough guy.

I really don't give a shit where you live. Just suggesting that north korea might be more to you liking since they have a socialist dictatorship like you seem to want here.

and for the record, I am quite sure I could kick your sorry liberal ass very easily.

Ooooh internet tough guy's gonna kick my liberal ass. HEY DUMB SHIT I'M NOT LIBERAL. HEY DUMB SHIT, I DON'T WANT A DICTATORSHIP OF ANY KIND. YOU ARE THE ONE DEMANDING SOCIAL RULE VIA GOVERNMENT YOU DUMB ASS. I'm the one arguing for liberty not you, you dumb ass.

If you're not liberal, then why are you always arguing the liberal side of every issue.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incest is still illegal.

Key word "still"

Yep. That's a big first step, much bigger than gay unrelated adults, much.

Next

******* your best friend isn't illegal in the country, while ******* your mommy or your little sister is. Best of luck.

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. Isn't that what you just said?

There is no REQUIREMENT for reproduction when you get married.
DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? No one is gonna make you get a divorce if you can't have children. No one is gonna stop you from getting married if you can't have children. Having children is not a requirement of marriage. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? ARE YOU DENSE?

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. Marriage is a right. Life is a right and marriage is a part of life. This is old established law.

What you are talking about is pissing on gays cause, well cause you are in the Majority vote. That's called tyranny of the Majority. We do not live in a country where people are arbitrarily punished by majority vote. We live in a constitutional republic where even minority groups of one are protected from angry authoritarian jerks like you.

Listen fool, the rights that you rant about were put in place by MAJORITY vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote, every law in this land was passed by majority vote.

but what you assholes want is minority rule. why not move to north korea where that is how they do things?

Why don't you come make me move, ya internet tough guy.

I really don't give a shit where you live. Just suggesting that north korea might be more to you liking since they have a socialist dictatorship like you seem to want here.

and for the record, I am quite sure I could kick your sorry liberal ass very easily.

Ooooh internet tough guy's gonna kick my liberal ass. HEY DUMB SHIT I'M NOT LIBERAL. HEY DUMB SHIT, I DON'T WANT A DICTATORSHIP OF ANY KIND. YOU ARE THE ONE DEMANDING SOCIAL RULE VIA GOVERNMENT YOU DUMB ASS. I'm the one arguing for liberty not you, you dumb ass.

If you're not liberal, then why are you always arguing the liberal side of every issue.

I argue for liberty. When you are for liberty, you will find me on your side.

 

[Pop23]

The beauty is you don't get a choice. The arguments either stand on their merits of fail.

You just keep giving us arguments with merit!

Good job, keep it up

Why do you want to ban infertile couples from getting married? That is so big government of you.

Oh, I don't lil fella, see same sex siblings are by nature, infertile.

Try to keep up will ya

Pop thinks gay marriage means incest marriage, only incest is illegal here, not to mention incest marriage.

And 15 years ago same sex marriage was illegal.

Your arguments that changed one, might change both

Still curious why you run from creating such tranforming arguments

Plural marriage yes the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages. Incest... no. The arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays will not work in cases of incest. Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.

All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children.

Then you ramble on about TRADITIONS.

The argument failed in the courts the first time, then must fail in future hearings.

I'll give you credit though.

You tried

 

[Pop23]

Key word "still"

Yep. That's a big first step, much bigger than gay unrelated adults, much.

Next

******* your best friend isn't illegal in the country, while ******* your mommy or your little sister is. Best of luck.

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. Isn't that what you just said?

There is no REQUIREMENT for reproduction when you get married.
DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? No one is gonna make you get a divorce if you can't have children. No one is gonna stop you from getting married if you can't have children. Having children is not a requirement of marriage. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? ARE YOU DENSE?

Works equally well for same sex siblings.

 

[Pop23]

its funny to watch the gay mafia get tangled up in their own rhetoric.

You are both idiots.

Interpretation for the left: he can't answer the argument

What argument? Your proposal that being gay is the same as having sex with your siblings? Your argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE. You might as well be arguing that if gays can get married, people who love their dogs will soon be demanding marriage with animals. The argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.

It's your proposal big fella.

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM.

Such a brilliant debater you are.


NOT

You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.

Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

I know you must be frustrated.

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why do you want to ban infertile couples from getting married? That is so big government of you.

Oh, I don't lil fella, see same sex siblings are by nature, infertile.

Try to keep up will ya

Pop thinks gay marriage means incest marriage, only incest is illegal here, not to mention incest marriage.

And 15 years ago same sex marriage was illegal.

Your arguments that changed one, might change both

Still curious why you run from creating such tranforming arguments

Plural marriage yes the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages. Incest... no. The arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays will not work in cases of incest. Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.

All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children.

Then you ramble on about TRADITIONS.

The argument failed in the courts the first time, then must fail in future hearings.

I'll give you credit though.

You tried

Ignoring my argument(s) is not the same as overcoming them.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are both idiots.

Interpretation for the left: he can't answer the argument

What argument? Your proposal that being gay is the same as having sex with your siblings? Your argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE. You might as well be arguing that if gays can get married, people who love their dogs will soon be demanding marriage with animals. The argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.

It's your proposal big fella.

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM.

Such a brilliant debater you are.


NOT

You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.

Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

I know you must be frustrated.

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.

Ignoring my arguments is not the same as overcoming them. As I stated the issue of incest is not solely based on risk of birth defects. See my other arguments above.

 

[Pop23]

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Because life is pretty important, and marriage is a pretty big part of life. Do we have more important issues? I suppose if you think your marriage is insignificant...

marriage is not a right, and yes, my marriage is very important to ME and my Wife. one man, one woman in a loving committed relationship.

again, society should decide what forms of human behavior it considers acceptable, and those decisions should be made by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Incorrect. Marriage is a right. Life is a right and marriage is a part of life. This is old established law.

What you are talking about is pissing on gays cause, well cause you are in the Majority vote. That's called tyranny of the Majority. We do not live in a country where people are arbitrarily punished by majority vote. We live in a constitutional republic where even minority groups of one are protected from angry authoritarian jerks like you.

Listen fool, the rights that you rant about were put in place by MAJORITY vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote, every law in this land was passed by majority vote.

but what you assholes want is minority rule. why not move to north korea where that is how they do things?

Relax Chickenfish, a majority of the SCOTUS will decide.

Yup, codifying the arguments for same sex sibling marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and Individual Liberty

 

[Pop23]

Interpretation for the left: he can't answer the argument

What argument? Your proposal that being gay is the same as having sex with your siblings? Your argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE. You might as well be arguing that if gays can get married, people who love their dogs will soon be demanding marriage with animals. The argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.

It's your proposal big fella.

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM.

Such a brilliant debater you are.


NOT

You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.

Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

I know you must be frustrated.

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.

Ignoring my arguments is not the same as overcoming them.

I answered your argument, which wasn't tough because your argument for SSM is the same as for SSSM.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the queers, marriage isn't about sex or reproduction, so those arguments are irrelevant.

no you lying POS. They said marriage isn't ONLY about sex AND reproduction, ya dumb ass piece of shit lying asshole.

Wrong, moron, they said reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. They said it dozens of times.

NO THEY DIDN'T YOU LYING POS

Yes, they certainly did.

NO.

Your buddy PMH just said it twice.

 

[danielpalos]

What argument? Your proposal that being gay is the same as having sex with your siblings? Your argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE. You might as well be arguing that if gays can get married, people who love their dogs will soon be demanding marriage with animals. The argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.

It's your proposal big fella.

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM.

Such a brilliant debater you are.


NOT

You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.

Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

I know you must be frustrated.

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.

Ignoring my arguments is not the same as overcoming them.

I answered your argument, which wasn't tough because your argument for SSM is the same as for SSSM.

Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and Individual Liberty

 

[RKMBrown]

What argument? Your proposal that being gay is the same as having sex with your siblings? Your argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE. You might as well be arguing that if gays can get married, people who love their dogs will soon be demanding marriage with animals. The argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.

It's your proposal big fella.

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM.

Such a brilliant debater you are.


NOT

You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.

Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

I know you must be frustrated.

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.

Ignoring my arguments is not the same as overcoming them.

I answered your argument, which wasn't tough because your argument for SSM is the same as for SSSM.

Liar.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?

Wrong.

The District Court ruling was at a judge bench trial.

That ruling was appealed to the Circuit Court and upheld. (3 Judge panel)

The proponents then requested an en banc review which was denied by the appeals court. (A majority vote against by the 29 Judges on the Appeals court.)

That ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS who accepted the case and then ruled on standing, BUT - they vacated the Circuit Court ruling but left the District Court ruling in place. They could have ordered a retrial by the District Court. Since the original District Court Judge had retired by this time it would have been with a different Judge. (9 Justices of the Supreme Court.)



That means a majority of the 42 Judges/Justices heard or reviewed the case with a majority vote in each case being that Prop 8 was unconstitutional or that the District Court ruling was left in place.

Saying "One Judge" making the decision is wrong.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

It's your proposal big fella.

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM.

Such a brilliant debater you are.


NOT

You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.

Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

I know you must be frustrated.

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.

Ignoring my arguments is not the same as overcoming them.

I answered your argument, which wasn't tough because your argument for SSM is the same as for SSSM.

Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and Individual Liberty

And you are a LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

 

[RKMBrown]

no you lying POS. They said marriage isn't ONLY about sex AND reproduction, ya dumb ass piece of shit lying asshole.

Wrong, moron, they said reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. They said it dozens of times.

NO THEY DIDN'T YOU LYING POS

Yes, they certainly did.

NO.

Your buddy PMH just said it twice.

No.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to to ignorance of State equivalents to Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.

The paradox continues

Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before. This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples. However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption. When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child. No adoption needed. Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>