Love "wins"

[bripat9643]

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.

The queers claim that reproduction had nothing to do with marriage, so whether ******* your cousin can produce children with birth defects is irrelevant, according to their own "logic." You're just admitting that they were lying out their ass.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I think the one thing I see that people have trouble wrapping their heads around is what marriage has become.

It now is simply a contract entered into by two people for what ever reason they want to partner.

There is nowhere in the law that bestows the right to sex with the other partner nor mandates sex by the partners to keep the contract valid.

The odd part is that this contract only requires the partners be not to closely related, as though being closely related somehow makes your 14th amendment rights moot? And there is no explanation in the law as to why.

As for incest. Incest is illegal in any form. Entering into a contract with that being the purpose voids the contract.

Perplexing to say the least.

 

[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.

I think the one thing I see that people have trouble wrapping their heads around is what marriage has become.

It now is simply a contract entered into by two people for what ever reason they want to partner.

There is nowhere in the law that bestows the right to sex with the other partner nor mandates sex by the partners to keep the contract valid.

The odd part is that this contract only requires the partners be not to closely related, as though being closely related somehow makes your 14th amendment rights moot? And there is no explanation in the law as to why.

As for incest. Incest is illegal in any form. Entering into a contract with that being the purpose voids the contract.

Perplexing to say the least.

Why should incest be against the law if sodomy isn't?

 

[Silhouette]

I think the one thing I see that people have trouble wrapping their heads around is what marriage has become.

It now is simply a contract entered into by two people for what ever reason they want to partner.

No, it isn't simply a contract entered into by two people. All sexual orientations must now be allowed to marry; or else it's the tyranny of the majority stripping civil rights away from a minority, remember? It now may be more than two people (the Brown's brief to Sotomayor is due any day now). The 14th Amendment can't play favorites.

I think it's funny you said "entered into by two...for what ever reason..." What if their reason is three? Or five?... "what ever reason"....

Also in Obergefell 2015, Justice Kennedy expressly said that marriage is about more than two people anyway. He said it strikes out and affects others in its midst and society in general. So saying, children are also implicit parties to the marriage contract. In fact they are now expressed parties to the marriage contract since Kennedy largely justified Obergefell because of what he called "benefits children derive from marriage".

And every person since the dawn of time has known anyway without speaking that children are implicitly part of the idea and legal concept of the word "marriage". It was in fact created precisely for THEIR benefit and not the adults involved. Otherwise people would've been happy just having sex with whomever, providing food for whomever, whenever. The trouble is that orphans or wards of single mothers (usually, but sometimes fathers) would starve to death from a free love society. No man would feel bound to them to provide where the mother could not; and vice versa. So marriage was created, for children, to provide them with a steady mother and father so that they didn't fall burden to the tribe or die from want.

This "new day and age" doesn't eliminate the need for complimentary gendered parents. They are still necessary for the self-esteem and mentoring; particular of children of the same gender as they. And since children always come in two genders and so does the society they'll eventually have to fit into, BOTH genders as parents are THE primary benefit of marriage to its implicit partners: children.

So it isn't so simple as you say. There are others involved. And for this reason, Obergefell is going to get a second look. It has to. It's institutionalized child abuse using a contract; which is forbidden by laws present since the 15th century we derived from England.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I think the one thing I see that people have trouble wrapping their heads around is what marriage has become.

It now is simply a contract entered into by two people for what ever reason they want to partner.

There is nowhere in the law that bestows the right to sex with the other partner nor mandates sex by the partners to keep the contract valid.

The odd part is that this contract only requires the partners be not to closely related, as though being closely related somehow makes your 14th amendment rights moot? And there is no explanation in the law as to why.

As for incest. Incest is illegal in any form. Entering into a contract with that being the purpose voids the contract.

Perplexing to say the least.

Why should incest be against the law if sodomy isn't?

Incest (at least between opposite sex partners) can result in horrific damage to the innocent child, and maybe worse, to future generations.

However, confusing incest with marriage between family members who do not have any intentions to engage in sex is the problem.

In a recent Supreme Court case (Windsor?) the court found the party had been damaged by not being able to marry. That damage was in the form of higher inheritance taxes than she would have paid if allowed to Marry her partner.

Now, wouldn't the child of a rich parent be right if suing for the same reason? Remember, sexual contact is not a requirement for a valid marriage.

Perplexing

 

[Pop23]

I think the one thing I see that people have trouble wrapping their heads around is what marriage has become.

It now is simply a contract entered into by two people for what ever reason they want to partner.

No, it isn't simply a contract entered into by two people. All sexual orientations must now be allowed to marry; or else it's the tyranny of the majority stripping civil rights away from a minority, remember? It now may be more than two people (the Brown's brief to Sotomayor is due any day now). The 14th Amendment can't play favorites.

I think it's funny you said "entered into by two...for what ever reason..." What if their reason is three? Or five?... "what ever reason"....

Also in Obergefell 2015, Justice Kennedy expressly said that marriage is about more than two people anyway. He said it strikes out and affects others in its midst and society in general. So saying, children are also implicit parties to the marriage contract. In fact they are now expressed parties to the marriage contract since Kennedy largely justified Obergefell because of what he called "benefits children derive from marriage".

And every person since the dawn of time has known anyway without speaking that children are implicitly part of the idea and legal concept of the word "marriage". It was in fact created precisely for THEIR benefit and not the adults involved. Otherwise people would've been happy just having sex with whomever, providing food for whomever, whenever. The trouble is that orphans or wards of single mothers (usually, but sometimes fathers) would starve to death from a free love society. No man would feel bound to them to provide where the mother could not; and vice versa. So marriage was created, for children, to provide them with a steady mother and father so that they didn't fall burden to the tribe or die from want.

This "new day and age" doesn't eliminate the need for complimentary gendered parents. They are still necessary for the self-esteem and mentoring; particular of children of the same gender as they. And since children always come in two genders and so does the society they'll eventually have to fit into, BOTH genders as parents are THE primary benefit of marriage to its implicit partners: children.

So it isn't so simple as you say. There are others involved. And for this reason, Obergefell is going to get a second look. It has to. It's institutionalized child abuse using a contract; which is forbidden by laws present since the 15th century we derived from England.

Saying it isn't just a simple contract, then showing it is, is not a great argument.

Hell, it's easier to get a marriage license then it is to form an LLC!

 

[Silhouette]

Incest (at least between opposite sex partners) can result in horrific damage to the innocent child, and maybe worse, to future generations.

Glad we're on the same page. "Gay marriage" results in horrific psychological damage to a child who, if the missing gender in that home, sees a daily living lesson "your gender (you) don't matter in a functioning adult world". Imagine our society three generations from now, all male or all female lines teaching the kids involved "that other gender is meaningless" by its very physical construct.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I think the one thing I see that people have trouble wrapping their heads around is what marriage has become.

It now is simply a contract entered into by two people for what ever reason they want to partner.

There is nowhere in the law that bestows the right to sex with the other partner nor mandates sex by the partners to keep the contract valid.

The odd part is that this contract only requires the partners be not to closely related, as though being closely related somehow makes your 14th amendment rights moot? And there is no explanation in the law as to why.

As for incest. Incest is illegal in any form. Entering into a contract with that being the purpose voids the contract.

Perplexing to say the least.

Why should incest be against the law if sodomy isn't?

Incest (at least between opposite sex partners) can result in horrific damage to the innocent child, and maybe worse, to future generations.

However, confusing incest with marriage between family members who do not have any intentions to engage in sex is the problem.

In a recent Supreme Court case (Windsor?) the court found the party had been damaged by not being able to marry. That damage was in the form of higher inheritance taxes than she would have paid if allowed to Marry her partner.

Now, wouldn't the child of a rich parent be right if suing for the same reason? Remember, sexual contact is not a requirement for a valid marriage.

Perplexing

I might add, shouldn't the IRS have to refund the billions upon billions of dollars collected over the years in inheritance taxes because family members were not allowed to Marry?

Again, this is very perplexing.

 

[JoeB131]

The queers claim that reproduction had nothing to do with marriage, so whether ******* your cousin can produce children with birth defects is irrelevant, according to their own "logic." You're just admitting that they were lying out their ass.

I think you are confused. Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage, but it might be a side effect if partners are of the opposite sex. Someone should have explained this ot you in home School.

 

[JoeB131]

I might add, shouldn't the IRS have to refund the billions upon billions of dollars collected over the years in inheritance taxes because family members were not allowed to Marry?

Again, this is very perplexing.

Not really. But you keep trying, bud.

 

[JoeB131]

Glad we're on the same page. "Gay marriage" results in horrific psychological damage to a child who, if the missing gender in that home, sees a daily living lesson "your gender (you) don't matter in a functioning adult world". Imagine our society three generations from now, all male or all female lines teaching the kids involved "that other gender is meaningless" by its very physical construct.

Again, not seeing a problem here. I think most women today would CRINGE at what was considered "proper" female behavior 200 years ago. Gender roles change.

 

[Pop23]

I might add, shouldn't the IRS have to refund the billions upon billions of dollars collected over the years in inheritance taxes because family members were not allowed to Marry?

Again, this is very perplexing.

Not really. But you keep trying, bud.

Do you have reasoning behind your post, or are you just tired of having to listen to those voices in your head?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Are you mad? Lesbians nor gay men can procreate, related or not.

I hope the hell you're really aren't that stupid.

 

[Silhouette]

Glad we're on the same page. "Gay marriage" results in horrific psychological damage to a child who, if the missing gender in that home, sees a daily living lesson "your gender (you) don't matter in a functioning adult world". Imagine our society three generations from now, all male or all female lines teaching the kids involved "that other gender is meaningless" by its very physical construct.

Again, not seeing a problem here. I think most women today would CRINGE at what was considered "proper" female behavior 200 years ago. Gender roles change.

They haven't changed that much. A man can't replace a mother. A woman can't replace a father. Children know the difference even if you or the adults pretending, don't. And it's the children who this discussion is about. The children of these perverse "marriages" including now apparently incest.

If the mother and daughter in this scenario are both consenting adults and sexually oriented towards one another and/or agree to be married, how would Obergefell prohibit them? Is this not an "intimate choice" they've both willingly made about their adult lifestyles? Should the majority be able to regulate these intimate choices of a minority or not? And if the majority should (cries of "but incest is illegal!!) regulate these intimate choices, which minority group gets off the hook and which does not? And why? Because "those types are icky!". ? "Bad for kids!"...?

 

[bripat9643]

The queers claim that reproduction had nothing to do with marriage, so whether ******* your cousin can produce children with birth defects is irrelevant, according to their own "logic." You're just admitting that they were lying out their ass.

I think you are confused. Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage, but it might be a side effect if partners are of the opposite sex. Someone should have explained this ot you in home School.

No one ever claimed it was a requirement. That's a queer argument. If the partners are of the same sex, then the institution is pointless. Why not just abolish it?

 

[bripat9643]

Glad we're on the same page. "Gay marriage" results in horrific psychological damage to a child who, if the missing gender in that home, sees a daily living lesson "your gender (you) don't matter in a functioning adult world". Imagine our society three generations from now, all male or all female lines teaching the kids involved "that other gender is meaningless" by its very physical construct.

Again, not seeing a problem here. I think most women today would CRINGE at what was considered "proper" female behavior 200 years ago. Gender roles change.

You're not seeing what you don't want to see. That's why you can't see the hypocrisy of gays not jumping to defend incestuous marriages.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you have reasoning behind your post, or are you just tired of having to listen to those voices in your head?

You mean other than you have no concept of Ex Post Facto laws?

Okay, like if they made being an idiot against the law today, you couldn't be prosecuted for being an idiot yesterday because it was still legal then.

 

[JoeB131]

You're not seeing what you don't want to see. That's why you can't see the hypocrisy of gays not jumping to defend incestuous marriages.

Incestuous marriages produce deformed babies.

Gay marriages... don't.

This isn't complicated.

Except you guy guys who think, "Let's bring up something icky to try to convince people the gay is still icky."

 

[JoeB131]

No one ever claimed it was a requirement. That's a queer argument. If the partners are of the same sex, then the institution is pointless. Why not just abolish it?

abolish marriage? Burn down the clubhouse because "those people" were allowed to join?

There's no compelling reason to ban gay marriage.

There is a compelling reason to ban incestuous marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Hypocrite much? ^^