Love "wins"

[P@triot]

Gays and interracial couples got the law changed. You are free to try to do the same so you can marry whatever close familial relationship you are attracted to. Good luck.

Bingo! And you bat-shit crazy progressives won't stop until you get the laws changed on incest, pedophilia, etc. All in the name of "progress" of course.

There is nothing more regressive than a progressive. They want to take us back to the Neanderthal days where people ran away mating with anything that moved, like wild animals.

 

[P@triot]

Of course not. You only want to count the "real" numbers under Obama. Tell Alex Jones "hi" for us when you're together shopping tin foil.

It's ironic that your obsessed with the numbers under Bush but you can't provide them to us. I provided the numbers that proved my point. Why can't you provide the numbers to prove your point?

 

[Iceweasel]

If you believe that there is a fundamental right for close familial relationships to marry, then I wish you luck in your legal battle. I don't think you'll be successful, but I support your support for an issue you seem to care deeply about.

The so called right used to be left up to the states. Some allow first cousins to marry, others no closer than 2nd cousins. If they are like genders which rule do they follow and why?

You're right...it changed for Loving v Virginia...then Zablocki v Redhail then Turner v Safley, then Obergefell v Hodges. Good luck with your Iceweasel v who the **** ever. Do you need money?

So you couldn't answer my questions. I wonder why. The fact is homosexuality isn't a race no matter how much you want it.

 

[P@triot]

Watching Seawytch hop around like a trained monkey on "Dancing with the Stars" trying to support and defend her irrational and inconsistent positions is fall down hilarious.

Here is the bottom line: homosexuality is an abnormality. No different from Down Syndrome, Siamese Twins, or a person born with 6 toes.

Now - should they be attacked, assaulted, and outcast for that? Absolutely not. No way in hell. But should they be celebrated? Should homosexual marriage be made legal? Should we work to "normalize" it? Absolutely not. No way in hell. It should be viewed exactly as it is - an abnormality. Not demonized. Not "normalized". And certainly not legalized from a marriage perspective.

 

[Silhouette]

Watching Seawytch hop around like a trained monkey on "Dancing with the Stars" trying to support and defend her irrational and inconsistent positions is fall down hilarious.

Here is the bottom line: homosexuality is an abnormality. No different from Down Syndrome, Siamese Twins, or a person born with 6 toes.

Now - should they be attacked, assaulted, and outcast for that? Absolutely not. No way in hell. But should they be celebrated? Should homosexual marriage be made legal? Should we work to "normalize" it? Absolutely not. No way in hell. It should be viewed exactly as it is - an abnormality. Not demonized. Not "normalized". And certainly not legalized from a marriage perspective.

Bingo.

And yes, Syriusly does twist around quite a bit trying to defend the indefensible positions she has on her perverse neo-cult's dogma. It's always the same when cult members try to defend their bizarre dogma. Watch interviews of cult members defending their ilk. Their lines are quite similar to the regular LGBT professional bloggers here.

 

[JoeB131]

Bingo! And you bat-shit crazy progressives won't stop until you get the laws changed on incest, pedophilia, etc. All in the name of "progress" of course.

except no one is actually advocating that...

Look, you guys have your best shot at arguing against gay marriage, and all your arguments came down to , "I think it's icky."

 

[Silhouette]

Bingo! And you bat-shit crazy progressives won't stop until you get the laws changed on incest, pedophilia, etc. All in the name of "progress" of course.

except no one is actually advocating that...

Look, you guys have your best shot at arguing against gay marriage, and all your arguments came down to , "I think it's icky."

Have you read the OP, idiot? No one? Really? Your arguments against polygamy marriage which you said would never happen because of gay marriage (which is due to have the Brown family brief reviewed by Sotomayor in a week I think, mid-September) are "because polygamy is bad bad bad!! 100% bad all the time bad!!"

The jig is up. Your hypocrisy bullshit has been called out.

 

[JoeB131]

Have you read the OP, idiot? No one? Really? Your arguments against polygamy marriage which you said would never happen because of gay marriage (which is due to have the Brown family brief reviewed by Sotomayor in a week I think, mid-September) are "because polygamy is bad bad bad!! 100% bad all the time bad!!"

The jig is up. Your hypocrisy bullshit has been called out.

I don't care that much about Polygamy.. not that there's any widespread movement for it.

We already have polygamy. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

Polygamy won't happen because polygamists are not 10% of the population like gays are. Now, maybe our culture will change at some time in the future where that wil be acceptable- shit, we already have blended families due to divorce and such --- but arguing anything other than gay marriage to oppose gay marriage just proves you don't have an argument other than, "I think it's icky".

 

[Silhouette]

I don't care that much about Polygamy.. not that there's any widespread movement for it.

We already have polygamy. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

Polygamy won't happen because polygamists are not 10% of the population like gays are. Now, maybe our culture will change at some time in the future where that wil be acceptable- shit, we already have blended families due to divorce and such --- but arguing anything other than gay marriage to oppose gay marriage just proves you don't have an argument other than, "I think it's icky".

Since when does a civil rights case have to have 10% of of the population behind it? Remember all your crap about "the majority doesn't set rules for individual civil rights"????!!

WOW ...I'm going to have to put on hip waders now.

Obergefell was ONE appellant. Just one. Only one. And the Brown family is going to be one appellant. Just one. Only one. And the majority cannot regulate marriage with respect to sexual orientation anymore so...yeah...done deal...legal polygamy in all 50 states or Obergefell is a discriminatory Ruling. It's one or the other.

 

[Seawytch]

If you believe that there is a fundamental right for close familial relationships to marry, then I wish you luck in your legal battle. I don't think you'll be successful, but I support your support for an issue you seem to care deeply about.

The so called right used to be left up to the states. Some allow first cousins to marry, others no closer than 2nd cousins. If they are like genders which rule do they follow and why?

You're right...it changed for Loving v Virginia...then Zablocki v Redhail then Turner v Safley, then Obergefell v Hodges. Good luck with your Iceweasel v who the **** ever. Do you need money?

So you couldn't answer my questions. I wonder why. The fact is homosexuality isn't a race no matter how much you want it.

Funny, I never claimed that gay was a race. I merely said that if you want to marry a sibling or other close family member, you only have one option, fight for it through the courts like gays and interracial couples did. Have you set up a go find me account?

 

[Seawytch]

Gays and interracial couples got the law changed. You are free to try to do the same so you can marry whatever close familial relationship you are attracted to. Good luck.

Bingo! And you bat-shit crazy progressives won't stop until you get the laws changed on incest, pedophilia, etc. All in the name of "progress" of course.

There is nothing more regressive than a progressive. They want to take us back to the Neanderthal days where people ran away mating with anything that moved, like wild animals.

Caution! Slippery Slope Ahead!

 

[bripat9643]

Please illustrate for me even one single example where liberal's drew the line in their in their quest for "progress". Just one example Seawytch. We're waiting
Another day, another lie from Seawytch. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That is an indisputable fact.

Where is the lie, "Patriot"? Marriage was between one white man and one white woman. That is an indisputable fact...they were still non familial consenting adults, just like today. All the same rules still apply. Non familial consenting adult couples...blacks marrying whites, men marrying each other, women marrying each other, men marrying women. Non familial consenting adults, just like it's been since we stopped burning witches.

They were also all opposite sex couples until the queers got the law changed, so why is that a valid argument?

I wasn't trying to "argue" with you. I support your right to pursue your goals in the exact same way that interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, incarcerated couples and gay couples did. Good luck with your fight to marry your mother.

Then you have no argument against incestuous marriage? Is that what you're saying?

Oh, I'm sure I could make quite a few...I don't care enough to do so. If you believe that there is a fundamental right for close familial relationships to marry, then I wish you luck in your legal battle. I don't think you'll be successful, but I support your support for an issue you seem to care deeply about.

It's just as much of a right as it is for two queers who can't reproduce to get married. We know you don't give a crap about other people's rights. You only care about you're own invented rights. Once you get what you want, screw everyone else. Isn't that right? You're just another grasping callous self-serving piece of crap. Why should anyone give a damn about your so-called "rights?"

 

[bripat9643]

Have you read the OP, idiot? No one? Really? Your arguments against polygamy marriage which you said would never happen because of gay marriage (which is due to have the Brown family brief reviewed by Sotomayor in a week I think, mid-September) are "because polygamy is bad bad bad!! 100% bad all the time bad!!"

The jig is up. Your hypocrisy bullshit has been called out.

I don't care that much about Polygamy.. not that there's any widespread movement for it.

We already have polygamy. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

Polygamy won't happen because polygamists are not 10% of the population like gays are. Now, maybe our culture will change at some time in the future where that wil be acceptable- shit, we already have blended families due to divorce and such --- but arguing anything other than gay marriage to oppose gay marriage just proves you don't have an argument other than, "I think it's icky".

If you don't care about the rights of polygamists, then why should anyone care about the so-called rights of queers?

 

[JoeB131]

Since when does a civil rights case have to have 10% of of the population behind it? Remember all your crap about "the majority doesn't set rules for individual civil rights"????!!

WOW ...I'm going to have to put on hip waders now.

Obergefell was ONE appellant. Just one. Only one. And the Brown family is going to be one appellant. Just one. Only one. And the majority cannot regulate marriage with respect to sexual orientation anymore so...yeah...done deal...legal polygamy in all 50 states or Obergefell is a discriminatory Ruling. It's one or the other.

Again, I don't really care... but the thing is this.


The reason why Obergafell worked was because Lawrence v. Texas destroyed all of the "sodomy" laws. Once the underlying action was legalized, you didn't have a leg to stand on to block marriage.

Bigamy is still a crime. Both on the Federal and state level. So until you get over that obstacle,good luck.

 

[JoeB131]

If you don't care about the rights of polygamists, then why should anyone care about the so-called rights of queers?

Because the queers have the standing of law behind them.

No problem, we've already reserved your bed at Tolerance Camp...

 

[Silhouette]

Have you read the OP, idiot? No one? Really? Your arguments against polygamy marriage which you said would never happen because of gay marriage (which is due to have the Brown family brief reviewed by Sotomayor in a week I think, mid-September) are "because polygamy is bad bad bad!! 100% bad all the time bad!!"

The jig is up. Your hypocrisy bullshit has been called out.

I don't care that much about Polygamy.. not that there's any widespread movement for it.

We already have polygamy. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

Polygamy won't happen because polygamists are not 10% of the population like gays are. Now, maybe our culture will change at some time in the future where that wil be acceptable- shit, we already have blended families due to divorce and such --- but arguing anything other than gay marriage to oppose gay marriage just proves you don't have an argument other than, "I think it's icky".

If you don't care about the rights of polygamists, then why should anyone care about the so-called rights of queers?

Exactly. The 14th Amendment demands that ALL sexual lifestyles be married; not just some at the discrimination to others..

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly. The 14th Amendment demands that ALL sexual lifestyles be married; not just some at the discrimination to others..

Um, no, not really.
Incestuous marriages are illegal because it's actually against the law to have sex with a blood relative. (Somebody tell the Red States!)

It's also against the law to have sex with children, animals and corpses.... so we can dispense with that nonsense.

it's no longer against the law to have sex with someone of the same gender.

While it is not a crime to have sex with multiple partners, itis a crime to marry more than one

But here's the reality. Gay marriage happened because a large part of the population wanted it to happen. The Supreme Court never goes against public opinion.

 

[Seawytch]

Where is the lie, "Patriot"? Marriage was between one white man and one white woman. That is an indisputable fact...they were still non familial consenting adults, just like today. All the same rules still apply. Non familial consenting adult couples...blacks marrying whites, men marrying each other, women marrying each other, men marrying women. Non familial consenting adults, just like it's been since we stopped burning witches.

They were also all opposite sex couples until the queers got the law changed, so why is that a valid argument?

I wasn't trying to "argue" with you. I support your right to pursue your goals in the exact same way that interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, incarcerated couples and gay couples did. Good luck with your fight to marry your mother.

Then you have no argument against incestuous marriage? Is that what you're saying?

Oh, I'm sure I could make quite a few...I don't care enough to do so. If you believe that there is a fundamental right for close familial relationships to marry, then I wish you luck in your legal battle. I don't think you'll be successful, but I support your support for an issue you seem to care deeply about.

It's just as much of a right as it is for two queers who can't reproduce to get married. We know you don't give a crap about other people's rights. You only care about you're own invented rights. Once you get what you want, screw everyone else. Isn't that right? You're just another grasping callous self-serving piece of crap. Why should anyone give a damn about your so-called "rights?"

Except I've never said "screw everyone else". I've quite consistently wished you luck in your fight for legal recognition of incestuous or polyamorous relationships. I'm not giving y'all money.

 

[P@triot]

Gays and interracial couples got the law changed. You are free to try to do the same so you can marry whatever close familial relationship you are attracted to. Good luck.

Bingo! And you bat-shit crazy progressives won't stop until you get the laws changed on incest, pedophilia, etc. All in the name of "progress" of course.

There is nothing more regressive than a progressive. They want to take us back to the Neanderthal days where people ran away mating with anything that moved, like wild animals.

Caution! Slippery Slope Ahead!

Caution! That's exactly how progressives live their life. Which is why Seawytch here can't provide even a single example of progressives drawing a line in the sand and refusing to "progress" one step further on something because it would be inappropriate to do so.

 

[P@triot]

Except I've never said "screw everyone else". I've quite consistently wished you luck in your fight for legal recognition of incestuous or polyamorous relationships. I'm not giving y'all money.

That is so ridiculous and disingenuous wytchy. You should be ashamed of yourself. With gay marriage, you advocated, donated, voted for elected officials who would support it, etc. With any other type of marriage, you just say "good luck". Which means you oppose it. Which means you're a disgusting hypocrite who lied about "love wins" and just used that as a false narrative for your agenda.

Step up for incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage like you did gay marriage. Lets see some real activism over there wytchy. Does "love win" or not?!? If you're all about "love" and "acceptance" then you should be working around the clock for these poor people. I think this proves that you're just a typical selfish progressive. Whatever you want should be 100% legal no matter how immoral or unethical. Whatever anyone else wants should be banned.