Love "wins"

[P@triot]

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

That's a false narrative by the left though Silhouette. Homosexuals were never denied anything under the law when homosexual marriage was outlawed. Homosexuals could vote. Carry a firearm. Petition their representatives. Hell, they could even get married. A gay woman could marry any man that she wanted and a gay man could marry any woman that he wanted.

They didn't want equal rights - they wanted special rights. They wanted to be able to do something that nobody else could do before.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Why should they? Lines in the sand are your thing.

Progressives are the ones who look at that status quo and say, that needs to change...


Which has give us gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, workers rights... you know, things that a civilized, progressive society should have.

Poodle, you really need to put down the Ayn Rand and see how the real world works.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the correlation between non familial consenting adult couples and polygamy or incest. It's kinda weird that you do.

I support legalizing pot, but not cocaine or heroin, etc. life isn't all black and white.

Get the go fund me going and I might donate for polygamy...then maybe my wife and I can find a sugar mama.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Does it hurt to twist your brain into these kinds of shapes, Poodle?

 

[P@triot]

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the correlation between non familial consenting adult couples and polygamy or incest. It's kinda weird that you do. I support legalizing pot, but not cocaine or heroin, etc. life isn't all black and white. Get the go fund me going and I might donate for polygamy...then maybe my wife and I can find a sugar mama.

The problem with progressives is that they see only what they want to see and nothing more. The correlation is not between consenting adults and incest. The correlation is between progressives pushing the envelope to get society to accept everything and anything and progressives pushing the envelope to get society to accept everything and anything. It's a direct correlation as you can see.

It was unthinkable in 1885 that homosexuality would ever be accepted, much less to have homosexual marriage legalized. But the left just kept chipping away and chipping away. They threw in their usual tactics of course (anyone who disagrees should be falsely labeled a "homophobe" and "hateful"), and eventually scared everyone into either accepting it or being silent about it for fear of being labeled someone "evil".

Today, it is unthinkable to you that incest or pedophilia would ever be accepted. But unlike you, I've closely studied progressive history and progressive tactics. What is unthinkable to you today will be mainstream tomorrow. We've already seen how there is an organization dedicated to legalizing pedophilia and hard-core left-wing website Salon.com recently had a pedophile write an article about how sad his life is wanting to touch and have sex with children. Ten years ago, that would have been absolutely unthinkable. Nobody would have dared admitted they were that sick and no website would have dared publish something like that. And what was the reaction? Outrage? Take the website offline? Nope. The overwhelming majority of progressives applauded. They cheered. They raved about how "brave" the pedophile was and how he should be admired. They made him into a hero! Sound familiar? It's what your side of the aisle did with homosexuality many years ago, and again with transsexualism (can you say that olympic dude married to the Kardashian?) recently.

Are you aware in Europe there has been a push to make "abortion" legal up to 4 years after a child has been born? You know....just in case a parent decides 4 years later that they don't want to be a parent. They can just commit cold-blooded murder and it won't be murder but simply an "abortion".

These are the people you stand with Wytch. You may not agree with these things. And the ideology may have blinded you to what is coming. But these are the people you stand with. Some really sick f'ing people with some really sick f'ing positions.

 

[bripat9643]

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...

The question being asked is why one should have the law enforcing their so-called "right." All you've said is "because they do."

That's the kind of brilliant logic we've come to expect from you and all the other douche bags who defend gay marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Does it hurt to twist your brain into these kinds of shapes, Poodle?

ROFL! You're the one doing all the twisting, douche bag. He's just pointing it out.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, it's against the law because it's against the law. Classic douche bag logic.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong, asshole. Marriage is about reproduction, and queers can't reproduce. You admit it's about reproduction when you claim incestuous marriages should be illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why should they? Lines in the sand are your thing.

Progressives are the ones who look at that status quo and say, that needs to change...


Which has give us gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, workers rights... you know, things that a civilized, progressive society should have.

Poodle, you really need to put down the Ayn Rand and see how the real world works.

Why would you say it needs to change in the case of queers but not in the case of incest?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the correlation between non familial consenting adult couples and polygamy or incest. It's kinda weird that you do.

I support legalizing pot, but not cocaine or heroin, etc. life isn't all black and white.

Get the go fund me going and I might donate for polygamy...then maybe my wife and I can find a sugar mama.

All your proving is that you are incapable of committing logic. All the arguments your ilk used to promote gay marriage are equally applicable to incestuous marriages.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Bwahahahaha! Just when I think that JoeB13 couldn't possibly get any dumber, he goes and lowers the bar. I'm so glad that I looked at what in the hell BriPat was responding to (it was blocked on my screen). I would have missed this gem.

The Supreme Court is not elected officials. They (sadly) do not answer to the people. Therefore, they could care less what the population wants. It's safe to say that in at least 50% of the cases they rule on, they go against the overwhelming majority. Even hard-core liberal California voted down gay marriage in Proposition 8.

If the American people wanted gay marriage - there wouldn't have been a need to take it to the Supreme Court. They simply would have voted to legalize it in each and every state. Thanks for illustrating once again what an astounding dumb-ass you are JoeB. And thanks for reminding me why I blocked you...

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Bwahahahaha! Just when I think that JoeB13 couldn't possibly get any dumber, he goes and lowers the bar. I'm so glad that I looked at what in the hell BriPat was responding to (it was blocked on my screen). I would have missed this gem...The Supreme Court is not elected officials. They (sadly) do not answer to the people. Therefore, they could care less what the population wants. It's safe to say that in at least 50% of the cases they rule on, they go against the overwhelming majority. Even hard-core liberal California voted down gay marriage in Proposition 8.....If the American people wanted gay marriage - there wouldn't have been a need to take it to the Supreme Court. They simply would have voted to legalize it in each and every state. Thanks for illustrating once again what an astounding dumb-ass you are JoeB. And thanks for reminding me why I blocked you...

I'm sure a very large part of the population would like all prisoners freed from prison (like all the prisoners in prison and many of their family members...that's a damn lot of people). But we keep them there because breaking the law isn't legal. Just as gay marriage isn't legal. Obergefell was a mistrial.

If gay marriage was put to a vote, now that the US knows incest and polygamy are on deck to use the same arguments the gays did, gay marriage would go up in smoke. With a landslide.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem with progressives is that they see only what they want to see and nothing more. The correlation is not between consenting adults and incest. The correlation is between progressives pushing the envelope to get society to accept everything and anything and progressives pushing the envelope to get society to accept everything and anything. It's a direct correlation as you can see.

Except no one has actually done that.

The reason why we finally won equal rights for gays is because all your sad-ass arguments boiled down to 'I think it's icky". You couldn't really come up with any other reason why gays shouldn't be able to enjoy the same rights you have.

Now, there is a pretty good argument as to why incest should be illegal- genetic birth defects. (Although in a lot of your beloved, freedom loving red states, you can still marry your cousin.)

Why would you say it needs to change in the case of queers but not in the case of incest?

are you ******* retarded? Oh, wait, you probably are. Incestuous relationships can lead to inbreeding and genetic defects. You know, it's why all the Red States keep voting Republican and believing in 2000 year old fairy tales. INbreeding.

 

[JoeB131]

Bwahahahaha! Just when I think that JoeB13 couldn't possibly get any dumber, he goes and lowers the bar. I'm so glad that I looked at what in the hell BriPat was responding to (it was blocked on my screen). I would have missed this gem.

The Supreme Court is not elected officials. They (sadly) do not answer to the people. Therefore, they could care less what the population wants. It's safe to say that in at least 50% of the cases they rule on, they go against the overwhelming majority. Even hard-core liberal California voted down gay marriage in Proposition 8.

Uh, are you ******* retarded. Look at where the pooling was at when Obergefell was decided.

But it is nice to see how much I ******* humilate you, Poodle, that you run away like a scared dog.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure a very large part of the population would like all prisoners freed from prison (like all the prisoners in prison and many of their family members...that's a damn lot of people). But we keep them there because breaking the law isn't legal. Just as gay marriage isn't legal. Obergefell was a mistrial.

If gay marriage was put to a vote, now that the US knows incest and polygamy are on deck to use the same arguments the gays did, gay marriage would go up in smoke. With a landslide.

Uh, no, guy, it wouldn't. You see, this is how the Mormons won Prop 8 by making these outlandish claims of all the bad stuff that would happen. But people are a little smarter than that.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem with progressives is that they see only what they want to see and nothing more. The correlation is not between consenting adults and incest. The correlation is between progressives pushing the envelope to get society to accept everything and anything and progressives pushing the envelope to get society to accept everything and anything. It's a direct correlation as you can see.

Except no one has actually done that.

The reason why we finally won equal rights for gays is because all your sad-ass arguments boiled down to 'I think it's icky". You couldn't really come up with any other reason why gays shouldn't be able to enjoy the same rights you have.

Now, there is a pretty good argument as to why incest should be illegal- genetic birth defects. (Although in a lot of your beloved, freedom loving red states, you can still marry your cousin.)

Why would you say it needs to change in the case of queers but not in the case of incest?

are you ******* retarded? Oh, wait, you probably are. Incestuous relationships can lead to inbreeding and genetic defects. You know, it's why all the Red States keep voting Republican and believing in 2000 year old fairy tales. INbreeding.

The queers claimed over and over again that marriage wasn't about reproduction, so that argument doesn't work for you, douche bag. If reproduction is a justification for denying incestuous marriages, then it's also a justification for denying queer marriages.

 

[P@triot]

Incestuous relationships can lead to inbreeding and genetic defects. You know, it's why all the Red States keep voting Republican and believing in 2000 year old fairy tales. INbreeding.

The queers claimed over and over again that marriage wasn't about reproduction, so that argument doesn't work for you, douche bag. If reproduction is a justification for denying incestuous marriages, then it's also a justification for denying queer marriages.

Yes folks....JoeB really is that stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

The queers claimed over and over again that marriage wasn't about reproduction, so that argument doesn't work for you, douche bag. If reproduction is a justification for denying incestuous marriages, then it's also a justification for denying queer marriages.

Well, my days of thinking you are a retard are definitely coming to a middle.

Gay marriages can't produce inbred retards. They actually can't produce anything without some kind of help.

Cleetus marrying his sister can produce you know, red state voters.

 

[Rustic]

The queers claimed over and over again that marriage wasn't about reproduction, so that argument doesn't work for you, douche bag. If reproduction is a justification for denying incestuous marriages, then it's also a justification for denying queer marriages.

Well, my days of thinking you are a retard are definitely coming to a middle.

Gay marriages can't produce inbred retards. They actually can't produce anything without some kind of help.

Cleetus marrying his sister can produce you know, red state voters.

There's nothing more incestouse than socialism... Just look at Europe.
Lol