Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Redfish]

Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.

two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?

You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?

I don't have a sister. it was your sister I was screwing.

a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex, does it?

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.

two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?

And your nonsense continues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bullshit. You are nothing but a dumb ass troll.

a troll calling someone else a troll

 

[Redfish]

Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.

two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?

And your nonsense continues.

nope the nonsense is yours. once again what will you tell sisters who want to marry once SSM is legal?

what legal argument will you make to prevent them from marrying?

 

[RKMBrown]

Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.

two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?

You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?

I don't have a sister. it was your sister I was screwing.

a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex, does it?

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

 

[JakeStarkey]

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?

I think my favorite part of your answer was where you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate, followed closely by how traditional norms must apply to marriage.

Now, try supplying a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.

Pop23

"...you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate..."

You apparently think they can't.

In this age of easily accessible information, its just astounding to see how ignorant some people are.

Link

Read yourself. Concerning the OP, there are far greater matters to worry about than marriage equality. Let it go, far right.

 

[Redfish]

two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?

You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?

I don't have a sister. it was your sister I was screwing.

a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex, does it?

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

 

[Pop23]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

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.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) 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.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

 

[Redfish]

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?

I think my favorite part of your answer was where you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate, followed closely by how traditional norms must apply to marriage.

Now, try supplying a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.

Pop23

"...you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate..."

You apparently think they can't.

In this age of easily accessible information, its just astounding to see how ignorant some people are.

Link

Read yourself. Concerning the OP, there are far greater matters to worry about than marriage equality. Let it go, far right.

LOL "marriage equality" the new left wing buzzword. You lefties are so full of shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?

I don't have a sister. it was your sister I was screwing.

a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex, does it?

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

 

[Pop23]

No, there is not, and why do you give a ****? If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.

Thanks for the honesty in your answer

I've said such a thing many times. Now answer the question? Why is this any of your business?

As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business.

I've answered your question.

What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?

Marriage equality would cause pop to get a divorce.

It will cause the total breakdown of the new-Q-ler family in the US.

OTOH, straight divorce, absentee fathers, single mothers struggling to feed their families - its all good.

Deflection noted: blood must be running into your head from being upside down to long.

 

[Redfish]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

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.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) 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.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

you can expect to be called a name rather than receive a response to your very logical queston.

 

[RKMBrown]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

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.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) 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.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

 

[Redfish]

I don't have a sister. it was your sister I was screwing.

a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex, does it?

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

 

[Redfish]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

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.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) 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.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them. Switching from my answers to new and / or different questions while ignoring the answers is deflection.

you keep dodging the basic question.

 

[RKMBrown]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

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.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) 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.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

you can expect to be called a name rather than receive a response to your very logical queston.

I provided answers to his question. Why can't you two read?

 

[RKMBrown]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

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.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) 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.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them. Switching from my answers to new and / or different questions while ignoring the answers is deflection.

you keep dodging the basic question.

Liar. I provided two direct answers to the basic question. Why can't you read them?

 

[Pop23]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

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.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) 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.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

 

[Pop23]

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

Exactly, these folks seem hung up on sex

 

[RKMBrown]

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.