Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[bripat9643]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists.

Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

One doesn't have to procreate or even have sex to get married.

One doesn't have to be married to procreate or to even have sex.

Oh look, they're right.

So you have no problem then with making it legal for a man to marry his sister?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

State the compelling government interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.

There isn't one, so therefore you approve?

Same sex sibling marriage will be forced on me whether I approve or not.

But surely you're okay with it, since no compelling reason against it can be found?

My only compelling reason is that I don't want homos to be happy so then they will go to a different country.

Why don't YOU go to a different country.....like Iran. Or Russia?

I've already stated that I don't care enough about it to move. I'll let all the homos **** monkeys until they infect themselves with AIDS.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the problem with you liberals. You only want rights for special interest groups. You don't fight for everyone who is discriminated against... Racist *****

One, learn the definitions of the terms you use. Two, I have made no argument for a special interest group. Three, and you conclude the statement with an assertion that has no basis.

You're a homo lover therefore you are liberal. Liberals only care about homos rights. They don't care about people who want to marry their mothers even though they believe in that kind of sick shit. Conclusion: you are a ***

Guess you missed my any two can marry part eh?

Have fun with all the married butt sex you want. I won't participate. Liberals are a joke though. They engage in far more racism than the right ever has. Liberals are a bunch of racist, sexist, and even worse.. self hating homos I've ever talked to. They like everyone but the cis gendered white male who they discriminate against.

I've enjoyed married butt since the wife let me do her, about 20 years ago.

We really don't want to know anything about your private life.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe, maybe not, but soon we'll not only have same sex marriage, followed by same sex sibling marriage and the states will start scrambling to create legislation to stop it and all sibling marriage.

Truth

Gay marriage is a done deal. Nothing they can do about that. As for incest marriage, it's traditional so they'll have to fight that out in the courts. Either way, you have no rational reason against gay marriage, which means your opposition is irrational.

Oh I do, it leads to a legal paradox that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage, and since that discriminates againt heterosexuals (based on their ability to procreate) a good chance that all sibling marriage become legal.

Nope, don't like it.

Oh and by the way, should SSM become law, the arguments for it would be EXACTLY the same all along the line.

So, your only reason is, I Don't Like It? Well, not enough for the courts or society at large. Guess that puts you out in the cold my friend.

I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest

What difference does someone ******* their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.

 

[bodecea]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige.

Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No it is not. Nice try trying to slip your desires into our court cases tho.

 

[Londoner]

Here is the problem with getting rid of the "Gay Marriage Issue".

It is crucial to mobilizing a key segment of [mostly] religious conservatives, many of whom don't understand economic issues or foreign policy beyond talking points about socialism and terrorism.

While I commend Redfish for wanting to get beyond these pointless wedge issues, he might be underestimating the strategic genius of the Reagan Revolution, which was the engine behind the Think Tank and Talk Radio revolution (designed to convince Americans that their country had been stolen by immoral, God-hating communists). Point is: morality/religion was the Right's populist answer to the Left, which attempted to attract poor voters with working class issues and social justice.

Most Republicans don't understand that conservatism was more of an outreach tool to attract voters. It was conducted by Plutocrats who wanted to buy the government and redesign policies so as to exclude the middle and lower classes from both the political process and the distribution chain.

To achieve their goal of taking over Washington, the plutocrats needed a spokesperson - enter populist firebrand Ronald Reagan who, it should be noted, rarely went to church prior to his campaign for president. As governor of California, he passed the most liberal abortion law the nation had ever seen. However, in order for the new corporatist plutocracy to capture the presidency, they needed to break the Left's New Deal Coalition , which united the deeply conservative South and Heartland since 1932 (see the "Solid South"). They needed to reach average voters. The primary tool for capturing average voters (mainly comprised of Dixiecrats and Bible-Belt-Conservatives) was conservatism, i.e., religion and tradition. This strategy took advantage of the Left's 60's-pivot from traditional working class issues to lifestyle issues (which waged war on the nuclear family).

Interestingly, Reagan grew up as a New Deal Democrat. He campaigned for Truman. However, the money of corporate America (mostly from Big Oil who was afraid of Carter's alternative energy agenda) gave Reagan a path to the presidency, and that path was through a partnership with Pat Robertson and conservatism. Reagan's partnership with the Moral Majority was not some genuine political movement, it was a brilliant strategy for scaring conservatives into the voting booth using wedge issues like gay marriage.

Even though gay marriage is a distraction from the most pressing issues of our time, it is absolutely necessary for the Republican Movement, which uses conservatism to fool poor people into voting for the narrow special interests of the plutocrats who fund the GOP Machine. Men like Dick Chaney are not against gay marriage, but he understands the need for conservative voters.

Psst: Reagan wasn't stupid. He was paid handsomely to switch parties and "discover" religion. Thankfully for the GOP leadership most conservative voters don't know the real history of their greatest hero. This collective ignorance about the true motives of the Republican Movement was the goal behind the Think Tank/Talk Radio/Fox News Revolution. You gotta hand it to the Right. They realized in the 70s that to attract voters, they needed to create their own media bubble based largely on fabricated demons, fake patriotism and religious bromides. Reagan was a brilliant spokesperson for the new conservative movement. Let's just say that he was paid handsomely to switch teams.

 

[bodecea]

Gay marriage is a done deal. Nothing they can do about that. As for incest marriage, it's traditional so they'll have to fight that out in the courts. Either way, you have no rational reason against gay marriage, which means your opposition is irrational.

Oh I do, it leads to a legal paradox that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage, and since that discriminates againt heterosexuals (based on their ability to procreate) a good chance that all sibling marriage become legal.

Nope, don't like it.

Oh and by the way, should SSM become law, the arguments for it would be EXACTLY the same all along the line.

So, your only reason is, I Don't Like It? Well, not enough for the courts or society at large. Guess that puts you out in the cold my friend.

I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest

What difference does someone ******* their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.

Why is it that you have to: a) try to piggy back onto the gay marriage argument for your incest, and b) have to misrepresent what others say in order to make your "argument" at all?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Here is the problem with getting rid of the "Gay Marriage Issue".

It is crucial to mobilizing a key segment of [mostly] religious conservatives, many of whom don't understand economic issues or foreign policy beyond talking points about socialism and terrorism.

While I commend Redfish for wanting to get beyond these pointless wedge issues, he might be underestimating the strategic genius of the Reagan Revolution, which was the engine behind the Think Tank and Talk Radio revolution (designed to convince Americans that their country had been stolen by immoral, God-hating communists). Point is: morality/religion was the Right's populist answer to the Left, which attempted to attract poor voters with working class issues and social justice.

Remember: Reagan rarely went to church prior to his campaign for president. As governor of California, he passed the most liberal abortion law the nation had ever seen. However, in order to win the presidency, he needed to break the Left's New Deal Coalition , which united the deeply conservative South and Heartland regions since 1932 (see the "Solid South"). The primary tool for converting Dixiecrats and the Bible Belt conservatives was conservatism, i.e., religion and tradition. This strategy took advantage of the Left's pivot from traditional working class issues to lifestyle issues (which waged war on the nuclear family).

Reagan grew up as a New Deal Democrat. He campaigned for Truman. However, corporate America (mostly Big Oil who was afraid of Carter's alternative energy agenda) gave Reagan a path to the presidency, and that path was through a partnership with Pat Robertson and conservatism. Reagan's partnership with the Moral Majority was not some genuine political movement, it was a brilliant strategy for scaring conservatives into the voting booth using wedge issues like gay marriage.

Even though gay marriage is a distraction from the most pressing issues of our time, it is absolutely necessary for the Republican Movement, which uses conservatism to get poor people to vote for the narrow special interests of the plutocrats who fund the GOP Machine.

Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.

 

[bodecea]

No one has demonstrated marriage is an archaic construct. Only foolish people would suggest that.

Marriage is a construct that has changed in the last three millenniums, yes, but, that is a different matter.

That's the problem with you liberals. You only want rights for special interest groups. You don't fight for everyone who is discriminated against... Racist *****

One, learn the definitions of the terms you use. Two, I have made no argument for a special interest group. Three, and you conclude the statement with an assertion that has no basis.

You're a homo lover therefore you are liberal. Liberals only care about homos rights. They don't care about people who want to marry their mothers even though they believe in that kind of sick shit. Conclusion: you are a ***

Guess you missed my any two can marry part eh?

Have fun with all the married butt sex you want. I won't participate. Liberals are a joke though. They engage in far more racism than the right ever has. Liberals are a bunch of racist, sexist, and even worse.. self hating homos I've ever talked to. They like everyone but the cis gendered white male who they discriminate against.

Feel better now?

 

[JakeStarkey]

For what reason? You don't seem to have one. It can't be tradition since gay marriage and incest marriage have both existed. Give us a compelling reason?

The Paradox continues

Still no reason eh Pops? I guess you are just irrational.

As concessions go, that was suitably lame for you, but you've consistently turned from the point, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Opposition to SSM is irrational, period.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

But only because that is how Nature designed human physiology.

Marriage is a social construct that has evolved over time, and now culture and science has developed so that marriage equality can be incorporated in law and society. That some don't like it or disagree is just too bad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige. Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No, it's not, and you can't demonstrate that it is is. And you can't give an argument that the state does not have a compelling interest to continue to prevent it.

Not until SSM is legal. Once it is, then the state must come up with a compelling reason to deny same sex siblings the right to the benefits to marriage.

Same sex siblings cannot procreate, so the state has no compelling reason.

If so, please be so kind as to stop whining and state what that might be.

Because you say so. There is no compelling interest for anyone to do as you say.

 

[Pop23]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige.

Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No it is not. Nice try trying to slip your desires into our court cases tho.

Then point out the argument that does not work for SSSM once an affirmative ruling has been given for SSM.

Come now, quit being coy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists. Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

None of which has anything to do with incestuous marriage.

 

[Pop23]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige. Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No, it's not, and you can't demonstrate that it is is. And you can't give an argument that the state does not have a compelling interest to continue to prevent it.

Not until SSM is legal. Once it is, then the state must come up with a compelling reason to deny same sex siblings the right to the benefits to marriage.

Same sex siblings cannot procreate, so the state has no compelling reason.

If so, please be so kind as to stop whining and state what that might be.

Because you say so. There is no compelling interest for anyone to do as you say.

OMG, the amazing Jakey admits his fail!

One more down!

 

[JakeStarkey]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige.

Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No it is not. Nice try trying to slip your desires into our court cases tho.

Then point out the argument that does not work for SSSM once an affirmative ruling has been given for SSM.

Come now, quit being coy.

No one has to. It is not an argument.

 

[Pop23]

Oh I do, it leads to a legal paradox that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage, and since that discriminates againt heterosexuals (based on their ability to procreate) a good chance that all sibling marriage become legal.

Nope, don't like it.

Oh and by the way, should SSM become law, the arguments for it would be EXACTLY the same all along the line.

So, your only reason is, I Don't Like It? Well, not enough for the courts or society at large. Guess that puts you out in the cold my friend.

I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest

What difference does someone ******* their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.

Why is it that you have to: a) try to piggy back onto the gay marriage argument for your incest, and b) have to misrepresent what others say in order to make your "argument" at all?

Then end it by showing the states compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

You do realize one exists now, but cannot after SSM. RIGHT?

 

[Pop23]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige.

Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No it is not. Nice try trying to slip your desires into our court cases tho.

Then point out the argument that does not work for SSSM once an affirmative ruling has been given for SSM.

Come now, quit being coy.

No one has to. It is not an argument.

More deflection with no reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige. Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No, it's not, and you can't demonstrate that it is is. And you can't give an argument that the state does not have a compelling interest to continue to prevent it.

Not until SSM is legal. Once it is, then the state must come up with a compelling reason to deny same sex siblings the right to the benefits to marriage.

Same sex siblings cannot procreate, so the state has no compelling reason.

If so, please be so kind as to stop whining and state what that might be.

Because you say so. There is no compelling interest for anyone to do as you say.

OMG, the amazing Jakey admits his fail! One more down!

And you lied . . . again. No one has a compelling interest to do as you say, Pop. You have so failed in this thread. Nothing new.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No paradox exists.

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.

The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige.

Either it works for both or it works for neither.

No it is not. Nice try trying to slip your desires into our court cases tho.

Then point out the argument that does not work for SSSM once an affirmative ruling has been given for SSM.

Come now, quit being coy.

No one has to. It is not an argument.

More deflection with no reason.

Yes, you are deflecting because your argument is not reasonable

 

[WorldWatcher]

The ability to create defective children, just ask world watcher.

Link to the post Pop where I made that argument.

If not, please don't make things up about what I post.


>>>>