It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.

You can spout nonsense till the cows come home.

You created a very ugly situation and won't own up to it.

What an infant

What a sad little bigot you are.

Pissed off because no one will dance with your straw man.

Take a break Looney Tune, go do something you consider fun, like interior decorating.

 

[Syriusly]

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.

You can spout nonsense till the cows come home.

You created a very ugly situation and won't own up to it.

What an infant

What a sad little bigot you are.

Pissed off because no one will dance with your straw man.

Take a break Looney Tune, go do something you consider fun, like interior decorating.

Exposing bigots and perverts like you is what I consider to be fun.

 

[Syriusly]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what?

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.

If not, then you have an equal protection problem.

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law.

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.

Whether or not there is sexual contact is not the only possible reason to prevent close relations marriages.

All of which can, and do exist with non related marriages.

Not seeing how that will apply but I am willing to listen.

Pop is willing to 'listen' but just not willing to 'hear'.

But whether you ask or not- he will trot out his incest straw man.

 

[Syriusly]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US! I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.

Who is this "US" you speak of?

You speak for no one but yourself.

You don't speak for the majority of Americans- you speak for your own particular point of view.

But you have every right to try to convince 'US' that we should abolish legal marriage.

Personally, I think the current solution is as 'respectful' as your proposed solution- and far simpler. After all- you want to deny legal marriage to every American. I want Americans to be able to marry, regardless of their race, or gender.

 

[Syriusly]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.

LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.

Remember- its is the Courts who said that morality legislation imposed by Christians which told Americans what kind of sex that we could have in our bedrooms was unconstitutional.

It was the Courts which said that morality legislation imposed by Christians to ban contraception was unconstitutional.

Remember- it is the Christian majority which passes legislation to tell Americans what is morally acceptable and what is not- and the courts have been the one saying such laws are unconstitutional.

Your ignorance of history is profound.

 

[Boss]

LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.

No, you're more of a fundamentalist wacko.

 

[Boss]

You speak for no one but yourself.

I speak for millions who reject changing the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexual behavior. The problem is, you're a liberal. All liberals believe that the entire country agrees with them... all it ever takes is a bogus poll showing some majority somewhere... that translates to the entire country marching in lockstep to whatever crazy idea the liberal is endorsing.

 

[Pop23]

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.

You can spout nonsense till the cows come home.

You created a very ugly situation and won't own up to it.

What an infant

What a sad little bigot you are.

Pissed off because no one will dance with your straw man.

Take a break Looney Tune, go do something you consider fun, like interior decorating.

Exposing bigots and perverts like you is what I consider to be fun.

^^^^futher proof of OCD.

Gotta laugh at the pervert comment. You can't make this chit up folks

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what?

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.

If not, then you have an equal protection problem.

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law.

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.

Whether or not there is sexual contact is not the only possible reason to prevent close relations marriages.

All of which can, and do exist with non related marriages.

Not seeing how that will apply but I am willing to listen.

Pop is willing to 'listen' but just not willing to 'hear'.

But whether you ask or not- he will trot out his incest straw man.

Sure Francis, sure

 

[Montrovant]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what?

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.

If not, then you have an equal protection problem.

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law.

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.

Whether or not there is sexual contact is not the only possible reason to prevent close relations marriages.

All of which can, and do exist with non related marriages.

Not seeing how that will apply but I am willing to listen.

Birth defects can and do happen in children born of non-familial parents. The question is the degree of danger involved.

As I've said, it's far less clear with sibling relationships, but when it comes to parents and children, there seems to be far too great a danger of the authority figure (parent) having too much influence over the decisions of the child. In the same way teachers are not allowed to have romantic or sexual relations with their students, even if they are of age, having a parent and child in a romantic relationship creates a larger than normal danger that one member of the relationship has too much control over the decisions of the other. It's not an absolute rule, but as with other laws, generalizations are made.

 

[EverCurious]

Like I said, they'd have to get past the law against incest marriage. Thing is, I don't see a hell of a lot of people pounding the doors of the court to legalize it...

Still has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with SSM.

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what?

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.

If not, then you have an equal protection problem.

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law.

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.

Whether or not there is sexual contact is not the only possible reason to prevent close relations marriages.

All of which can, and do exist with non related marriages.

Not seeing how that will apply but I am willing to listen.

Birth defects can and do happen in children born of non-familial parents. The question is the degree of danger involved.

As I've said, it's far less clear with sibling relationships, but when it comes to parents and children, there seems to be far too great a danger of the authority figure (parent) having too much influence over the decisions of the child. In the same way teachers are not allowed to have romantic or sexual relations with their students, even if they are of age, having a parent and child in a romantic relationship creates a larger than normal danger that one member of the relationship has too much control over the decisions of the other. It's not an absolute rule, but as with other laws, generalizations are made.

Yet, especially since the latest ruling, a ruling that was most concerned about the granting of finacial benefits, it seems that the concern of birth defects is a bit absurd.

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.

That's why we start with same sex hetro siblings. There is no sexual contact with hetros, and they are similarily situated to a non related same sex couple.

Understand, there are no requirements under marriage laws for sexual contact, faithfulness or even love, so what's the point of not allowing hetro siblings from the rights and benefits of marriage.

 

[Pop23]

Like I said, they'd have to get past the law against incest marriage. Thing is, I don't see a hell of a lot of people pounding the doors of the court to legalize it...

Still has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with SSM.

The door doesn't swing open until the same sex ruling comes down, so indeed it does.

 

[Faun]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Uh, no it isn't in the U.S.. it's the union of two consenting people over the age of consent.

Denial is not a river.

You really don't understand the law, do you?

The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?

 

[Pop23]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Uh, no it isn't in the U.S.. it's the union of two consenting people over the age of consent.

Denial is not a river.

You really don't understand the law, do you?

The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?

What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand.

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand

 

[Faun]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.

No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today.

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage.

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest.

You must be so proud.

 

[Faun]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Uh, no it isn't in the U.S.. it's the union of two consenting people over the age of consent.

Denial is not a river.

You really don't understand the law, do you?

The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?

What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand.

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand

You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the ******* deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.

 

[Pop23]

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Uh, no it isn't in the U.S.. it's the union of two consenting people over the age of consent.

Denial is not a river.

You really don't understand the law, do you?

The law of the land is gays can now legally marry each other in all 50 states. What part of that do you think I don't understand?

What part of gays could always marry in all 50 states do you not understand.

And what part of, thanks to same sex marriage, family members will likely be able to marry do you not understand

You really are painfully stupid. The only way they could marry before was when marriage was restricted to be between a man and a woman. That was the claim made by the ******* deranged boss, who I corrected before you jumped in with your idiocy. Still don't understand?

Also stupid is your nonsense that gay marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. Of course it doesn't. Same-sex incest remains illegal despite the reality that same-sex immediate family members don't procreate.

So being similarily situated means nothing now?

incest is an act or action. Same sex gay siblings, by definition, could act in an incestuous manner, same sex hetro couples, by definition would not.

You would exclude hetro's because gays would? It doesn't work that way.

 

[Faun]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Nonsense. If that were the case, same-sex incest would have been legalized years ago.

No, incest is illegal now, and always will be. Two heterosexuals of the same sex can't be incestuous by it very definition, and they are similarily situated to those same sex couples being married today.

By the same argument that same sex marriage became legal, so must heterosexual same sex sibling marriage.

When you succeeded in redefining marriage, you redefined incest.

You must be so proud.

Allowing gays to marry each other doesn't redefine incest. Just how insane are you?