Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[JakeStarkey]

Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

This is adorably ironic.

 

[Syriusly]

The biggest nonsense of the whole thread is that Keys' talks as an authority, when he is no more than a concrete thinker paraphrasing Silhouette, his puppet master.

The fact is that culture changes. We no longer have Jewish polygamy and or child sacrifice, and we no longer tolerate Christian head and master laws in marriage.

SCOTUS will rule, Marriage Equality will be, and the minimalization of the far right will continue.

I barely scan Keys posts- they are essentially the rantings of a loon, and are largely incomprehensible. There is no possibility of any 'dialogue' with Keys.

Redfish I disagree with- but he is rational and can write a comprehensible post and can when he wants to respond.

 

[Syriusly]

Redfish has made an admirable attempt to defend his position. Yes, five years will come, and those of us still alive can determine whether it is is good or not. I disagree with Redfish on his points, as any good Christian would.

Is the Pope a good Christian? He disagrees with you 100% How about MLK? was he a good Christian? He also disagreed with you. Bily Graham, good Christian?

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than Religion; our Founding Fathers ordained an established it so, and spake it so, in Article the Sixth.

Yeah, and we have constitional amendments to clarify what they did not write clearly in the constitution.

If you want gay marriage federally sanctioned, then pass a constitutional amendment.

No more need for a constitutional amendment for gay marriage than we needed a constitutional amendment so that men who don't pay child support can get married.

The courts are there to address Constitutional guarantees.

 

[Skylar]

Gays and lesbians have all the responsibilities of marriage as straights

Yes... and that responsibility is to comport one's behavior within the design set forth by nature... which defines marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There's no such requirement as nature sets no standard of behavior for marriage. It can't: there is no marriage in nature. There's ******* in nature. You equate them. No rational person ever would.

And our law certainly doesn't.

Remember, your empty 'Appeal to Authority' where you pretend to speak for nature is just a run of the mill fallacy of logic. You don't speak for nature. You speak for you. And your personal opinion doesn't define anyone's marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

 

[Syriusly]

Why two sets of laws one for civil unions and one for marriage that are the "same thing?" All this so you don't have to admit gays are "married?"

If a civil union gives you all of the rights, priviledges, and "cash and prizes" that married couples get, what is your objection?

I thought your crusade was for equal rights, but its not really is it? You want the govenment to mandate societal acceptance of your aberant lifestyle by calling your gay union a marriage.

This is not about rights with you fools, its all about the word. your hypocrisy is noted.

Why are you such an lying *****?

Marriage is not about cash and prizes. A civil union is not a marriage. Why should government mandate that gay marriage is a civil union only?

If you want to change the thousands of laws in this country regarding marriage to state civil unions, by all means go ahead and do it. I'm not stopping you. That said, you can't deny gays the right to life, that would be against the constitution. Get over it.

cash and prizes is not my term-------it is one used by your comrades from the gay mafia every day. It is used as a justification for gay marriage.

Your words, not mine. But I am glad to see that you think it is bullshit.

LOL gay mafia- sort of like your comrades from the Christo-fascists.......

The justification for 'gay marriage' is simple- its just marriage- exactly as my wife and I are married- but between two people of the same gender.

The justification is that there is no reason to discriminate against a gay couple and deny them the exact same status as my wife and I enjoy.

This I find funny......Homosexuals are forcing their sexual choices on culture demanding that all recognize it as normal or face GOVERNMENTAL consequences. Christians are telling some homosexuals they will not be part of a ceremony they see as a sin. ...... Which one sounds more fascist? The people vote in many states to say marriage is between a man and a woman....Homosexuals demand the GOVERNMENT over turn a legal vote to again normalize their sexual choices instead of just sucking it it and trying to get it passed at a latter date.....Again which is fascist?

Christians for years not only told homosexuals that they were 'evil'- they actively passed laws making it illegal to be homosexuals- imprisoning and chemically castrating those convicted of homosexuality- passed laws denying employment to homosexuals, passed laws denying marriage to homosexuals.

Where are the homosexuals trying to pass laws making it illegal to be a Christian- or illegal to worship Jesus? Where are the homosexuals trying to pass laws denying jobs to Christians?

And which is Fascists- what Christians have done for decades to homosexuals- or what homosexuals are not doing to Christians?

 

[Syriusly]

Now Redfish is babbling about incestuous marriages.

Silly.

However, to avoid that, remember those Civil Unions you fuckwits fought so hard?

Get the legislature to change the law, and sisters could form a Civil Union for tax purposes.

Why do that, they can just get married. Unless there is a federal law that reads as follows: gay marriages may only involve two unrelated adults, there wil be marriages of siblings, parents/children, and multiple person marriages. .

Frankly that is just idiotic.

First of all- we don't have Federal laws telling states who can marry who- it is a state issue subject to Constitutional guarantees.

Secondly, the laws regarding marriage of relatives applies regardless of what the Supreme Court rules. Today in California two men can marry under the same conditions as my wife and I married- so just as I could not marry my sister, no man can marry his brother. Nothing changed regarding the law forbidding sibling marriage or polygamous marriage.

We're still on this red herring?

Red Herring- Redfish- 14 days after declaring he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still arguing about gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Now Redfish is babbling about incestuous marriages.

Silly.

However, to avoid that, remember those Civil Unions you fuckwits fought so hard?

Get the legislature to change the law, and sisters could form a Civil Union for tax purposes.

Why do that, they can just get married. Unless there is a federal law that reads as follows: gay marriages may only involve two unrelated adults, there wil be marriages of siblings, parents/children, and multiple person marriages. .

Frankly that is just idiotic.

First of all- we don't have Federal laws telling states who can marry who- it is a state issue subject to Constitutional guarantees.

Secondly, the laws regarding marriage of relatives applies regardless of what the Supreme Court rules. Today in California two men can marry under the same conditions as my wife and I married- so just as I could not marry my sister, no man can marry his brother. Nothing changed regarding the law forbidding sibling marriage or polygamous marriage.

We're still on this red herring?

Red Herring- Redfish- 14 days after declaring he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still arguing about gay marriage.

Obsession?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Poor, poor Redfish. Your world is changing, for the better, and you are crying about it.

in many cases change is good. this change is not good. Thats my opinion based on many years of life, travel over most of the world, and interface with people of all faiths and cultures.

I am not going to change what I believe because some bozo tells me I have to. I don't give a shit what some beaurocrat deems politically correct.

I society with no morals or ethics is a society that will fail. We are following the pattern of other failed societies. We are not there yet, it can be turned around, but we are on the edge of the cliff.

and snake, I don't care if you agree or not, if you hurl insults at me, I don't care. I am right, you are wrong. The truth will prevail in the end.

Your opinion is not based on facts, information or anything else but blind ignorance.

BUT, that's not important. You don't have to agree and you don't have to like it. If you feel better calling it "gay marriage", fine but its really marriage equality.

Equality.

The most basic tenet of our society.

No, we're not on the edge of any cliff of destruction. That's just silly.

time will tell who is right about this. see me in 5 years and we will see who had it right.

with that, I declare this thread over, MODS please close it.

Why wait for 5 years from now?

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years.

Where are the sibling marriages in Massachusetts?

Where are the polygamous marriages in Massachusetts?

11 years- and no sign of either.

5 Years?

LOL!

Was Detroit bankrupt in 1970? Was the Black community in the US addled by drug dependence, single mother's pumping out children as a means to increase her monthly Federal and State dole?

No... five years beyond the passing of "The Great Society", Black culture was definitely in the slide, but still reflected, in large measure it's healthy former self, prior to the passing of such. It's taken the unprincipled Leftist notions just over two generations to sack the black culture.

In 11 years, which would be 1976, there was most definitely signs of the unenviable circumstances to come. Just as in 11 years hence Massachusetts, we are faced with that moral bankruptcy having spread to the heterosexual community, wherein we are now facing the very real probability that the SCOTUS will strip marriage of its legitimacy, by stripping it of the natural standards that provide for such.

From THERE, we will step over the precipice, having legalized one manifestation of sexual deviancy, preceding the legalization of all manifestations of sexual deviancy and in so doing normalizing the mental disorder that presents as such, dooming the culture to the same consequences realized by every other culture in human history which as so foolish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

With himself as the Authority.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Red Herring- Redfish- 14 days after declaring he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still arguing about gay marriage.

ROFLMNAO!

Red herring indeed.


The Reader should recognize the above cited would-be 'contribution' as a plea for those who oppose the normalization of the perverse reasoning which justifies sexual deviancy, to stop publicly opposing such. As it is through THAT which this otherwise INSIGNIFICANT MINORITY; which is to say an infinitesimal minority, has deceived the public into believing that it is orders of magnitude larger than it actually is.

You see Reader, when you remain silent on matters of principle, your silence is perceived as an endorsement of that which is unprincipled.

Understand, it is through YOUR SILENCE, that evil is advanced.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I don't give two shits if 20 people marry each other, as long as they are all consenting adults. It won't change how I live, and it's none of my business.

 

[Redfish]

why is it "separate" if the rights are equal. How does the word make it separate?

is a synagoge equal to a church or mosque? Just because they have different names does not make one better than the other.

You don't know why men are different than women?

duh, yeah. what does that have to do with this topic?

Sorry thought it was obvious. Here ya go:

male separate from female but with equal rights... separate but equal...

gay marriage separate from heterosexual marriage but with equal rights... separate but equal...

are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

This might be a rhetorical question but, are you mentally handicapped?

Please provide a link to the part in the Constitution where it covers regulation of urinals. While your at it please provide a link to where I said anything about urinals..

jake said that unisex restrooms were ok with him. you two are so similar in your rants I get you mixed up.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

 

[Redfish]

ACLU does lots of cases that fail, and this one will also.

if gay marriage is sanctioned by the SC, what legal arguments can be brought to deny polygamous marriage?

Redfish asks:
if gay marriage is sanctioned by the SC, what legal arguments can be brought to deny polygamous marriage?

Since 'gay marriage' is as unrelated to polygamous marriage as 'mixed race marriage' is- either there is a legal argument existing now to deny polygamous marriage- or there isn't a legal argument now to deny polygamous marriage.

So Redfish- are you opposed to polygamous marriage- or not?

If you are opposed- what is your legal argument to oppose polygamous marriage right now?

the same as my objection to gay marriage. Any union other than one man and one woman is not a marriage. It may be a binding contract, but its not a marriage

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Reader, you'll want to pay close attention here. As this is will demonstrate how easily the Left is defeated.

Note, that in the above cited exchange, I have first: Found a Leftist AND I have managed to get it to speak.

In speaking; as is ALWAYS the case, the Leftist has advanced an idea which references one of the laws of nature; specifically a law which governs human reasoning. In so doing, as they will do without fail, every time they make reference to a natural law, it conflates the actual law, with it's own subjective need.

The Law; which those who observed it first, entitled it: Argumentum ad Verecundiam; which is to say the argument from respect... with another variation being Ipse Dixit; which is to say: 'He, himself said it...' speaks to the fatally flawed logical construct which appeals to the reasoning of another... and does so absent sustaining argument, which demonstrates the truth of the reasoning or evidence set forth by the preceding authority.

In this instance, I have advanced the intrinsic authority of nature itself. Stating in specific terms the basis of nature's ACTIONS... wherein Nature has DESIGNED HUMANITY WITH TWO DISTINCT BUT COMPLIMENTING GENDERS, EACH RESPECTIVELY DESIGNED TO JOIN WITH THE OTHER... WHEREIN THAT UNION OF TWO DISTINCT BODIES ESTABLISHES ONE SUSTAINABLE PHYSICAL BODY, FROM TWO.

FURTHER POINTING THAT MARRIAGE IS THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF THAT UNION, WHEREIN TWO BODIES ARE JOINED AS ONE IN LEGAL TERMS: THE MALE AND FEMALE JOIN TO FORM ONE LEGAL ENTITY.

This provides the reference of unimpeachable facts, as the basis for the fact that nature has, in so doing DEFINED MARRIAGE.

By that construct I have not appealed to any authority, I have DEMONSTRATED THE FACTS... REGARDING THE AUTHORITY, demonstrating that such IS IN FACT: THE AUTHORITY.

Now with that said, we can now see that the would-be "contributor" has no means to sustain her 'reasoning', and I will now allow it to demonstrate such, to wit:

Skylar, where specifically do you find my argument, fallacious? Meaning that I am challenging you to state in SPECIFIC TERMS, the elements of my argument which fallaciously appeal to authority.

Enjoy the silence reader. Providing you such, is always: my esteemed pleasure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

 

[Redfish]

I don't give two shits if 20 people marry each other, as long as they are all consenting adults. It won't change how I live, and it's none of my business.

then you are very naive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ACLU does lots of cases that fail, and this one will also.

if gay marriage is sanctioned by the SC, what legal arguments can be brought to deny polygamous marriage?

Redfish asks:
if gay marriage is sanctioned by the SC, what legal arguments can be brought to deny polygamous marriage?

Since 'gay marriage' is as unrelated to polygamous marriage as 'mixed race marriage' is- either there is a legal argument existing now to deny polygamous marriage- or there isn't a legal argument now to deny polygamous marriage.

So Redfish- are you opposed to polygamous marriage- or not?

If you are opposed- what is your legal argument to oppose polygamous marriage right now?

the same as my objection to gay marriage. Any union other than one man and one woman is not a marriage. It may be a binding contract, but its not a marriage

That is your opinion and has no force of law.

 

[Syriusly]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

You are the fool who keeps insisting that 'gay marriage' is somehow related to sibling marriage.

"gay marriage' is no more related to sibling marriage than 'mixed race' marriage or 'straight marriage'.

Massachusetts legalized 'gay marriage' in 2004- and no sign of sibling marriage there.

Just a strawman put out by anti-gay marriage advocates.